Hermanson v. State
1992 WL 148245, 604 So.2d 775 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory scheme violates the Due Process Clause when it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is criminally proscribed. Specifically, where one statute permits reliance on spiritual treatment for a child and another criminalizes the failure to provide medical care based on a vague standard, the scheme is unconstitutionally ambiguous for failing to clearly define the point at which protected religious practice becomes a criminal offense.
Facts:
- William and Christine Hermanson were members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, which believes in healing through spiritual means.
- Their seven-year-old daughter, Amy Hermanson, became ill around September 22, 1986, exhibiting lethargy, weight loss, and other symptoms.
- The Hermansons believed Amy's issue was emotional and engaged a Christian Science practitioner to provide spiritual treatment through prayer.
- Amy's condition worsened over the next week, and on the day of her death, a Christian Science nurse was called to assist with her care.
- Christine Hermanson's father expressed concern to William Hermanson that Amy might have diabetes.
- On September 30, 1986, after the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) was notified of a child abuse complaint, paramedics were called, but Amy died before they arrived.
- An autopsy revealed Amy's cause of death was diabetic ketoacidosis from untreated juvenile diabetes, a condition that could have been diagnosed and treated by a physician.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Christine Hermanson were charged with felony child abuse and third-degree murder in a Florida trial court.
- A jury found the Hermansons guilty on both counts.
- The trial court sentenced them to four-year suspended prison sentences and fifteen years' probation.
- The Hermansons, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, finding the spiritual treatment provision did not provide a defense to criminal prosecution.
- The District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Florida's child abuse statutes, when read in conjunction with a statutory provision accommodating spiritual healing, violate the Due Process Clause by failing to provide clear notice to parents of the point at which their reliance on spiritual treatment for their child becomes criminally culpable negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Overton
Yes, the statutory scheme violates the Due Process Clause. The conflicting statutes fail to give parents notice of the point at which their reliance on spiritual treatment loses statutory approval and becomes culpably negligent. A person of ordinary intelligence cannot be expected to understand when reliance on spiritual healing crosses the line into a criminal offense under this ambiguous statutory framework. The statutes create a trap by authorizing conduct in one section while criminalizing it in another without a clear line of demarcation. Unlike the court in Walker v. Superior Court, which found that parents must 'estimate rightly' the point of criminal negligence, this court finds that standard unacceptably arbitrary when a statute specifically appears to authorize the conduct. The confusion among the lower courts and the jury itself serves as evidence of the statutes' vagueness. Therefore, the state cannot, consistent with due process, prosecute parents who relied on a specific statutory provision that appears to permit their conduct.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that when a legislature provides a religious accommodation, it must do so with clarity, especially when criminal liability is at stake. It rejects the notion that individuals must 'guess correctly' when their state-sanctioned religious practices become criminally negligent. The ruling places the burden on the legislature to explicitly define the boundaries between protected religious conduct and criminal child abuse or neglect. This precedent significantly strengthens due process protections for parents who rely on spiritual healing, requiring that any law limiting such practices provide explicit and fair warning of what conduct is forbidden.
