People v. Taylor
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 510, 32 Cal. 4th 863, 86 P.3d 881 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who commits an act with conscious disregard for human life in general may be convicted of second degree implied malice murder for the resulting death of a fetus, even if the defendant was unaware of the mother's pregnancy or the fetus's existence.
Facts:
- Harold Wayne Taylor and Patty Pansier had a romantic relationship which ended in July 1998.
- Following the breakup, Taylor threatened to kill Pansier and anyone close to her, stating if he could not have her, "nobody else could."
- On January 1, 1999, Pansier accused Taylor of rape, resulting in his arrest and Pansier obtaining a restraining order against him.
- In the months that followed, Taylor stalked and followed Pansier on multiple occasions.
- On March 9, 1999, Taylor used a ruse to gain entry into Pansier's apartment, where an apparent struggle occurred.
- Taylor shot and killed Pansier inside her apartment.
- An autopsy revealed Pansier was 11 to 13 weeks pregnant, and the fetus died as a result of her death.
- Pansier's pregnancy was not visually apparent; the examining pathologist could not discern it by observing her body.
Procedural Posture:
- The prosecution charged Harold Wayne Taylor in the trial court with two counts of second degree murder for the deaths of Patty Pansier and her fetus.
- A jury convicted Taylor on both counts of second degree murder.
- Taylor, as the appellant, appealed his conviction for the murder of the fetus to the Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the fetal murder conviction, finding insufficient evidence to support the mental component of implied malice.
- The Attorney General, on behalf of the People, petitioned the Supreme Court of California for 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 a conviction for second degree implied malice murder of a fetus require proof that the defendant knew the mother was pregnant and acted with a conscious disregard for fetal life specifically?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. A conviction for second degree implied malice murder of a fetus does not require proof that the defendant knew the victim was pregnant. The mental state for implied malice murder—a conscious disregard for life—does not require awareness of a specific victim, but rather a disregard for life in general. The court reasoned that when a defendant commits an act dangerous to human life with conscious disregard for that life, they act with implied malice toward everyone they kill, regardless of whether they were aware of each victim's existence. The court drew analogies to a gunman firing indiscriminately into an apartment building or killing an infant hidden under bedcovers, where liability for murder attaches to all victims. The court found no principled basis to distinguish an unknown fetus from any other unknown victim. Furthermore, the legislature's explicit inclusion of a knowledge requirement for a sentence enhancement involving injury to a pregnant woman (Pen. Code § 12022.9), and the absence of such a requirement in the murder statute (§ 187), indicates that knowledge of pregnancy is not an element of fetal murder.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Yes. A conviction for implied malice murder of a fetus should require that the defendant acted with knowledge of the danger to fetal life, not just life in general. The dissent argues that the legislature created two distinct classes of victims in the murder statute—human beings and fetuses—and the majority's 'life in general' standard erodes this distinction. The non-parallel statutory scheme, where manslaughter exists for killing a human being but not for killing a fetus, suggests the legislature intended to treat fetal murder differently. This creates anomalies, such as a defendant who kills a pregnant woman in the heat of passion being guilty of manslaughter for the mother's death but not guilty of any crime for the fetus's death. Given this statutory ambiguity, the rule of lenity requires construing the law in the defendant's favor, which would mean not holding a defendant liable for implied malice murder of a fetus whose existence was unknown and not reasonably apparent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the mens rea (mental state) for implied malice fetal murder in California, holding that a generalized malice is sufficient. By rejecting the need for specific awareness of the fetus, the court broadens the scope of liability under Penal Code § 187. This ruling makes it easier for prosecutors to secure murder convictions for fetal deaths that result from attacks on pregnant women, aligning the legal treatment of unknown fetal victims with that of other unknown victims under the 'zone of harm' doctrine. The case solidifies the principle that the culpability for implied malice murder derives from the defendant's conscious disregard for human life as a whole, not their knowledge of each potential victim.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Taylor