Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here Brief Fact Summary.
This appeal actually consists of two cases with similar facts consolidated for appeal. In separate prosecutions, the Defendants were each convicted of manslaughter after each Defendant shot his victim in the head, and in each case the victim was placed on a respirator. After each victim’s brain had irreversibly ceased to function, the victim was declared dead, and artificial respiration was terminated.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Death may be deemed to occur when the entire brain’s function has irreversibly ceased.
Facts.
In two separate and unrelated cases consolidated for appeal, each defendant was charged with homicide and convicted by separate juries of manslaughter after shooting his victim in the head. The victim in each case was rushed to a hospital in an unconscious state and placed on a respirator to enable breathing. When it was determined that each victim’s brain had irreversibly ceased to function, the victim was declared dead, and artificial respiration was terminated.
Issue.
Did the respective trial courts fail to adequately instruct the juries as to what constitutes a person’s death?
Held.
No. Convictions affirmed.
Death has traditionally been defined as a cessation of cardio-respiratory function. This had always served to adequately define death since the lungs and heart could not function without brain function. However, with advances in medical technology, cardio-respiratory function may continue with the aid of devices and drugs long after a person is “brain dead.”
Other states began to define death as the absence of respiratory and cardiac functions or absence of brain function. Hence, here the Court of Appeals of New York held that, given traditional notions of death and the common law conception of death, using brain-based criteria for determining death is appropriate. Therefore, in the present cases, there was sufficient evidence for the juries to find that each Defendant caused his victim’s death.
Discussion.
This case follows the trend among U.S. courts that death can be either a cessation of cardiorespiratory function or a cessation of brain function. Generally, the courts will utilized a two tier approach where death is determined first by the traditional method of cessation of cardiorespiratory function, but it may be determined by cessation of brain function if the victim is being kept alive by medical technology.
