305 P.3d 147
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendants' 16-year-old son Neil died from kidney failure in June 2008 after the family declined conventional medical treatment due to religious beliefs.
- Neil's illness began by March 2008 with progressive weakness and breathing difficulties; medical care in the week before death could have saved him.
- Defendants were charged with criminally negligent homicide under ORS 163.145 for failing to provide life-sustaining medical care to their child.
- Jury found defendants failed to recognize a substantial, unjustifiable risk of death, constituting a gross deviation from the standard of care.
- Defendants also faced evidence related to the earlier death of their granddaughter from lack of medical care; court consolidated cases on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute criminalizing negligent homicide imposes a parental duty to provide life-sustaining care. | State argues parents have a legal obligation to provide needed medical care. | Defendants argue the duty to provide care is not legally imposed by statute; potential constitutional concerns. | Yes; a parent has a legal duty to provide life-sustaining care, subject to statutory exceptions. |
| Whether the jury instructions correctly defined criminal negligence and the required factual showings. | State contends the instructions properly guided jurors to find awareness of a substantial risk and gross deviation. | Defendants contend some instructions misstate law or mislead the jury. | The instructions, considered together, correctly stated the law and were not prejudicial. |
| Whether the court should have given or rejected particular proposed jury instructions. | State rejects those proposed defenses, asserting law does not allow delay-based or extended-time defenses. | Defendants proposed instructions misstate law or are irrelevant. | Court properly rejected the challenged proposed instructions; correct law was charged. |
| Whether allowing evidence about the granddaughter’s death was proper. | State contends it shows awareness of risk and reasonable disregard. | Defendants argued it was irrelevant to negligence and could bias the jury toward recklessness. | Admission was proper; evidence relevant to negligence and to proving knowledge of risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hays, 155 Or. App. 41 (1998) (parental duty to provide care; exceptions for belief systems; criminal negligence context)
- Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 322 Or. 132 (1995) (free exercise; knowledge standard for religious practice; civil—not criminal—sanctions)
- State v. Barnes, 329 Or. 327 (1999) (instruction sufficiency; correct statement of law; no right to perfect instructions)
- State v. Bowen, 340 Or. 487 (2006) (reversible error requires prejudice; overall jury instruction analysis)
- State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 350 Or. 576 (2011) (prejudice analysis; misinstruction if verdict could be based on erroneous theory)
- Boldt v. Boldt, 344 Or. 1 (2008) (mature minor considerations; specific contexts outside this case)