Gilbert v. State
487 So. 2d 1185 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Euthanasia, or "mercy killing," is not a legally cognizable defense to a charge of first-degree premeditated murder. The "substituted judgment" doctrine, which permits the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from a terminally ill patient, does not apply to an affirmative act of killing.
Facts:
- Roswell Gilbert, 75, and his wife Emily, 73, had been married for 51 years.
- Emily Gilbert suffered from osteoporosis, which caused her significant pain, and Alzheimer's Disease, which caused her confusion.
- Despite her illnesses, Emily was not terminally ill, bedridden, or completely incapacitated; her doctor testified she could have lived for another five to ten years.
- Emily was mobile, went out for lunch daily with her husband, and sometimes expressed her suffering, once telling a friend, "I'm so sick, I want to die."
- On March 4, 1985, after hearing Emily say, "Please, somebody help me," Roswell Gilbert decided he had to "end her suffering."
- Gilbert retrieved a 9mm pistol from a closet shelf while Emily was resting on their sofa.
- He shot Emily in the head, and believing she was still alive after checking her pulse, shot her in the head a second time.
- Gilbert then called building security and stated, "I just killed my wife."
Procedural Posture:
- Roswell Gilbert was charged with first-degree premeditated murder for the killing of his wife, Emily Gilbert.
- The case was tried before a jury in a Florida trial court.
- During the trial, the defense requested special jury instructions on euthanasia and the doctrine of 'substituted judgment,' which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Roswell Gilbert guilty of first-degree murder.
- The trial court sentenced Gilbert to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years.
- Roswell Gilbert (appellant) appealed his conviction to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, with the State of Florida as the appellee.
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 a defendant's motive to end the suffering of an ailing spouse constitute a legal defense to first-degree premeditated murder under theories of euthanasia or substituted judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Walden
No. A defendant's motive to end a spouse's suffering does not create a legal defense to first-degree murder. The court held that euthanasia is not a defense to murder in Florida. Furthermore, the doctrine of "substituted judgment" established in cases like John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bludworth is inapplicable. That doctrine pertains to the passive withdrawal of extraordinary life support from a comatose, terminally ill patient who has executed a 'mercy will.' In contrast, Emily Gilbert was not terminally ill or comatose, had not executed a mercy will, and Roswell Gilbert committed an active, violent act of killing. The court explicitly rejected the argument that Emily's pained exclamation, "I'm so sick I want to die," could be considered a 'constructive mercy will,' stating such a precedent would be ridiculous and dangerous.
Concurring - Judge Glickstein
No. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's conclusion and emphasizes the critical distinction between an active killing and the passive withdrawal of life support. The author stresses that actively ending a life by shooting someone cannot be equated with "letting nature take its course" by removing a ventilator. The opinion also expresses concern about creating judicial distinctions between different types of murderers based on their purported motives, arguing that the law against murder should apply equally to a hired killer and a husband claiming a compassionate motive, as the victim is equally dead in either scenario.
Analysis:
This case establishes a firm legal precedent in Florida that a compassionate motive, or 'mercy killing,' does not mitigate a charge of premeditated murder. It draws a bright-line distinction between the legally sanctioned passive act of withdrawing life support from a terminally ill patient and the illegal active killing of a suffering individual. The ruling reinforces that the law protects all human life, regardless of its quality, and delegates any potential changes to the law on euthanasia to the legislature, not the courts. This decision serves as a clear warning that the justice system will not carve out exceptions for homicide based on the defendant's claim of a benevolent intent.
Unlock the full brief for Gilbert v. State