Quick Summary
Robert Keeler’s wife became pregnant with another man’s child. When he discovered this, Mr. Keeler began to hit her stomach, and as a result, she had to go to the hospital to get a cesarean section. The autopsy showed that the fetus had a fractured skull and died as a result of the attack on his mother’s stomach by Mr. Keeler. An inquiry revealed that the assault on Mrs. Keeler may have contributed to her fetus’s fractured skull. There was sufficient evidence for the district attorney to charge Mr. Keeler with murder under section 187 of the California Penal Code for killing a “human being.”
The issue at hand was whether a fetus qualifies as a human being under the law.
The court ruled that the murder provision of the California Penal Code only applies to actual, living people. Therefore, a person who intentionally kills a developing baby cannot be found guilty of murder.
Rule of Law
According to the California Penal Code, an unborn fetus is not considered a “human being,” even if it is considered a “person.”
Facts of the Case
On September 27, 1968, (defendant) Robert Keeler and his wife Teresa Keeler divorced. They had been married for four years. When Keeler found out that his wife was pregnant by another man’s child, he confronted her and began to hit her stomach. After he left, Mrs. Keeler had to get help and have a cesarean section to have her baby. The autopsy confirmed that a broken skull caused the stillborn baby’s death.
An inquiry revealed that Mr. Keeler’s assault on Mrs. Keeler’s stomach may have contributed to her fetus’s fractured skull. There was evidence that the fetus was alive before the attack, and the doctor had already observed the fetus moving. Petitioner, Mr. Keeler, was charged with several crimes, including the murder of the baby. Section 187 of the California Penal Code criminalizes killing a “human being.” Mr. Keeler made a motion to disregard the information. The lower court dismissed his application. Therefore he petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition.
Issue
Does the fetus that the petitioner is accused of killing meet the legal criteria to be considered a human being?
Holding and Conclusion
No.
The court granted the prohibition order. The Supreme Court of California holds that an unborn fetus does not fall under the definition of a “human being.” The court concluded by looking at the history of the law’s enactment and held that the law’s writers intended for “human beings” to indicate a person born alive. Therefore they left out “fetus” from the definition.
According to Penal Code section 6, there are no common law crimes in California, and only the legislative branch has the power to define crimes. Therefore, the People’s claim that a fetus may be viable on its own is invalid. The government can only change the definition, not the courts. If the petitioner had been subject to the new rule, it would have been against his right to due process.
Under the principles of due process, the court talks about how important it is to know what is and is not illegal behavior. In this case, the court found that there were no reported decisions in California that should have told the petitioner that it was against the law to kill a fetus that was not yet born but was still alive.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court reasoned that a fetus that has not been born yet is not a person under California’s murder law. Penal Code § 187, introduced in 1872, defines murder as “the unlawful death of a person with the intent to cause damage.” The section was taken directly from the Crimes and Punishments Act of 1850. As early as 1797, to be charged with murder, a person had to have been “born alive.” The court said that American case law says that killing an unborn child is not murder and that many legislatures have tried to change the common law by proposing a particular feticide statute. At the time, California did not have any laws against feticide.
The court concluded that the California Penal Code’s murder section only applies to live humans. Hence a person who willfully murders a viable fetus cannot be charged with murder.
Relevant FAQs of this case
Was this case brief helpful?