YOU ARE HERE: Central Kentucky Home→Collections→Heart Attack

View from the Bench: Homicide by heart attack

September 07, 2006|DAVID TAPP

The Kentucky Supreme Court recently upheld an unusual manslaughter conviction. The case arose in Fayette County where Binta Baraka was charged with manslaughter after her father, Brutus Price, died of a heart attack. Father and daughter were fighting when Brutus, a thin and frail man, collapsed.

During a pre-trial hearing, the defense sought to exclude the prosecution's expert, a state medical examiner, who intended to testify that Brutus was a victim of "homicide by heart attack". According to the defense, the doctor's testimony was unreliable and invaded the province of the jury to determine whether Brutus died as the result of homicide. The trial court ruled that the testimony could be properly admitted. Binta pled guilty and then appealed this issue to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

The Court affirmed Binta's conviction. In it's opinion, the Court noted that the term "homicide", does not necessarily imply that criminal act occurred. In fact, the term "homicide" is usually defined as the killing of a human being by another. Kentucky law excuses many forms of homicide, such as killings in self-defense, defense of others, or by accident. Thus, simply permitting the medical examiner to characterize Brutus's death as "homicide" did not imply that Binta had committed an offense. In fact, in Kentucky, there is no crime of simple "homicide".

Justice Cooper also noted that nearly every jurisdiction in the United States has upheld convictions predicated upon death by heart attack. In 1986, the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld a murder conviction where the defendant raped and assaulted an eighty-year old woman who died twenty-nine days later from a heart attack. In that case, there was evidence that the victim, aside from her advanced age, had previously suffered a heart attack and suffered from severe coronary disease. Nevertheless, a jury could properly consider whether her death was attributable to the defendant's acts and that the injuries "hastened her death". Other states have upheld convictions where death by heart attack resulted from "emotional stress" rather than physical injuries suffered during a crime.

Reasoning that it would not be apparent to most jurors that a heart attack was the result of the physical altercation between Binta and Brutus, the Kentucky Court determined that expert medical testimony was necessary. Since manslaughter in the second-degree requires proof that the defendant wantonly disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the altercation would result in her father's death, the medical examiner's opinion was not tantamount to telling the jury that a crime had occurred.

By permitting his testimony, the medical examiner was not being permitted to testify whether Binta was acting wantonly, recklessly or accidentally. That question was only for the jury and the decision would ultimately determine whether Binta had actually committed a crime.

Often times, unintended consequences result from what might only constitute minor criminal activity. When those consequences include death, Kentucky law may require full accountability.

|

|

|