Commonwealth v. Twitchell
617 N.E.2d 609, 416 Mass. 114 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory provision exempting parents from child neglect charges for relying on spiritual treatment does not provide a defense to a common law charge of involuntary manslaughter. However, a defendant may present an affirmative defense if they can show reasonable reliance on an official, albeit misleading, interpretation of the law by a public official.
Facts:
- David and Ginger Twitchell were practicing Christian Scientists who believed in spiritual healing.
- Their two-and-a-half-year-old son, Robyn, became seriously ill.
- Over a five-day period from April 4 to April 8, 1986, the Twitchells provided Robyn with care from a Christian Science practitioner and a Christian Science nurse instead of seeking conventional medical treatment.
- During Robyn's illness, David Twitchell consulted with a church official and read a church publication concerning the legal rights of Christian Scientists in Massachusetts.
- The publication quoted a portion of a state statute, G. L. c. 273, § 1, regarding spiritual treatment.
- Robyn died on April 8, 1986, from peritonitis caused by a perforated bowel, a condition that was surgically correctable with a high success rate.
Procedural Posture:
- David and Ginger Twitchell were charged with involuntary manslaughter in a Massachusetts trial court.
- The trial judge ruled that the spiritual treatment provision in G. L. c. 273, § 1, did not provide a defense to manslaughter.
- A jury found the Twitchells guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
- The defendants appealed their convictions from the trial court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, granted the defendants' application for direct appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the spiritual treatment provision in G. L. c. 273, § 1, which provides a defense against charges of child neglect, also bar a prosecution for common law involuntary manslaughter against parents who rely on spiritual healing for their child who subsequently dies?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
No, the spiritual treatment provision in G. L. c. 273, § 1 does not bar a prosecution for common law involuntary manslaughter. Parents have a common law duty to provide medical care for their children, and a breach of this duty that amounts to wanton or reckless conduct can support a manslaughter conviction. The spiritual treatment provision is located within a statute focused on child support and neglect, not homicide, and its language does not apply to the wanton or reckless standard required for manslaughter. However, the defendants' convictions must be reversed because they were denied the opportunity to present an affirmative defense based on their reasonable reliance on an official interpretation of the law. A 1975 Attorney General's opinion, which was incorporated into the church publication the Twitchells consulted, was arguably misleading by failing to warn that the spiritual treatment exemption did not apply to manslaughter. The failure to allow the jury to consider whether the Twitchells were misled by this official statement created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Dissenting - Nolan, J.
No, the spiritual treatment provision of G. L. c. 273, § 1 is not a defense to common law manslaughter. However, the majority errs in concluding that the defendants were entitled to a defense based on reliance on the Attorney General's opinion. That opinion dealt exclusively with the statutory crime of negligence and did not address homicide charges. It is an improper strain to read it as providing a blanket protection from all criminal liability. The church publication, which was properly excluded from evidence, was not competent on the issue of manslaughter, and therefore the defendants' reliance on it is not relevant. The convictions should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that statutory exemptions for spiritual treatment in child neglect laws are narrowly construed and do not abrogate the common law duty of parents to provide medical care when failing to do so would be wanton or reckless. The case is significant for establishing that a defendant's reasonable reliance on a misleading official interpretation of the law can form the basis of an affirmative defense, often called 'entrapment by estoppel.' This precedent requires courts to not only analyze the plain text of a law but also to consider whether a defendant was unfairly misled by official pronouncements, thereby injecting a fairness consideration into the traditional 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' doctrine.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Twitchell