Commonwealth v. Pestinikas Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief of Commonwealth v. Pestinikas criminal case. Describes facts, issues, holding, and reasoning. From week 4 in class; Chapter 3 in the textbook....

Description

Manuela Espinosa CJL 4110 Commonwealth v. Pestinikases Case Brief Facts: In this case, the Pestinikases were supposed to provide care to Joesph Kly once he was discharged from the hospital, but failed to provide many of the requirements recommended by the medical personnel. They placed him on an enclosed porch of a building away from their home with rundown conditions and gave his family misleading information about his whereabouts. They also had their names added to Kly’s bank account after he was discharged from the hospital. They began withdrawing money from his accounts soon thereafter. Eventually, when Kly died, he only had 55 dollars left in his accounts because of how much the Pestinikases had withdrawn (added up to be over 30,000). When Kly was found dead, his body appeared emaciated. An autopsy revealed that he had been dead for almost two days before the call had taken place. They were convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to serve at least five years in prison. They appealed. The superior court affirmed. Legal Issue: Can someone be legally liable for someone’s death if that someone was discharged to their care? Does a duty to act imposed by a contract legally enforceable and able to create a legal duty? Holding: Yes, the superior court affirmed the initial court’s conviction of third-degree murder. A criminal accusation might be brought against you if you fail to execute a responsibility imposed by a private contract. Reasoning: If 1) a failure to act results in the death of another person and 2) all other elements of the offense are met, an omission to act may support a criminal prosecution. There was a deliberate distinction between a legal responsibility to take affirmative action and a simple moral duty to act when duty was imposed by law and legislation made neglect to execute a legal duty sufficient for criminal culpability. A contractual obligation to perform is legally enforceable and so becomes a legal obligation. As a result, failure to fulfill a contractual obligation may be sufficient to sustain a criminal murder accusation. However, the failure to act must be accompanied by the required mens rea. An omission to execute private contractual responsibilities will not sufficient for a murder conviction if there is no malevolent intent. There was evidence that the Defendants' failure to provide food and medical treatment, which they had committed to do by oral contract with hospital officials, was the cause of Kly's death. A murder conviction would be warranted if the jury concluded that Defendants purposefully denied Kly essential food and care. As a result, the omission of the defendants was sufficient to sustain a murder conviction, and the trial court's jury instructions were proper. Source: Joel Samaha. 2015. Criminal Law(12thed.) Cengage. ISBN-13: 9781305577381....