Com. v. O'Brien, E.
2706 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 27, 2017Background
- In June 2016 a Chester County jury convicted Edward J. O’Brien III of third‑degree murder and aggravated assault after his elderly father was found in severe neglect and later died; sentence was 5–10 years on the murder count.
- Decedent had been moved from a New Jersey facility to O’Brien’s home in May 2011; thereafter he saw physicians rarely, developed infected pressure ulcers (decubiti), was malnourished, and was frequently soiled.
- Brandywine River Valley home‑health nurses attempted multiple visits in late‑2011 but documented refusals/noncompliance; only an initial assessment visit was completed.
- Forensic pathologist testified cause of death was congestive heart failure contributed to by infected decubiti; swabs showed organisms in wounds and in blood.
- O’Brien’s defense stressed that decedent had expressed a wish to forgo medical interventions; trial court instructed jury on an affirmative‑defense standard (preponderance) for a competent refusal, while reaffirming Commonwealth’s beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt burden for elements of crimes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (O’Brien) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: duty to act | Appellant voluntarily assumed care and secluded decedent; evidence supports a legal duty and that omission caused death | No legal duty existed under §301; convictions require an affirmative act causing death | Court: duty may arise from voluntarily assuming care and secluding a helpless person; evidence (records, witnesses, autopsy) sufficient to send to jury and to sustain convictions |
| Mens rea / causation for murder & aggravated assault | Malice/recklessness may be inferred from conscious disregard of extreme risk created by prolonged neglect | No proof of malice or intentional wrongdoing; omission and failure to procure care insufficient for malice and causation | Court: malice can be shown by conscious disregard of an unjustifiably high risk; expert causation testimony and circumstantial evidence suffice for jury to find legal cause and malice |
| Jury instruction on affirmative defense (refusal of care) | Instruction properly informed jury Commonwealth must prove elements beyond reasonable doubt; O’Brien bears preponderance burden to prove competent refusal (peculiarly within his knowledge) | Instruction relieved Commonwealth of burden by placing duty negation on defendant; unconstitutional | Court: instruction appropriate—Commonwealth still bore burden to prove duty beyond reasonable doubt; placing burden on defendant for an affirmative defense was proper and not prejudicial |
| Exclusion of testimony / hearsay (neighbor and third parties) | N/A (Commonwealth opposed admission on hearsay grounds) | Exclusion of neighbor and third‑party recounting of decedent’s wishes improperly deprived defense evidence of decedent’s opposition to care and non‑seclusion | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion—much relevant content (and defense theory) was presented through O’Brien’s own testimony and records; excluded statements were hearsay or vague and any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Widmer v. 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency claims and inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence)
- Golphin v. 161 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Super. 2017) (reiterating sufficiency‑of‑evidence review standard)
- Dunphy v. 20 A.3d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2011) (malice may be inferred from totality of circumstances and conscious disregard of extreme risk)
- Devine v. 26 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2011) (legal malice defined as conscious disregard of unjustifiably high risk)
- Pestinikas v. 617 A.2d 1339 (Pa. Super. 1992) (civil duties assumed by caregiver can satisfy criminal‑omission duty under §301; omission may support homicide only with requisite mens rea)
- Kellam v. 719 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1998) (four situations when failure to act can give rise to criminal liability: statute, status relationship, contractual duty, or voluntary assumption and seclusion)
- Lambert v. 723 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 1998) (standards for prior restraints on attorney speech where trial fairness is at risk)
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (U.S. 1991) (balancing attorney First Amendment rights against risk of material prejudice to adjudication)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1966) (trial judge’s duty to minimize prejudicial publicity)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1979) (trial management and publicity considerations)
- Jarvis v. 394 A.2d 483 (Pa. 1978) (prosecutor latitude in argument; improper language not automatically reversible error)