West v. Commonwealth
935 S.W.2d 315 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person can be held criminally liable for a homicide based on an omission to act if they have a legal duty to provide care for the victim. Such a duty arises when a person voluntarily assumes responsibility for the care of a helpless individual and secludes them from others who might render aid.
Facts:
- Lillian West, a 54-year-old woman with Down's Syndrome and a heart condition, was cared for by her mother, Rebekah West.
- In 1979, Lillian and Rebekah moved in with Lillian's brother, Russell West, and his wife, Ann West.
- After Rebekah's death in 1983, Russell and Ann West assumed full responsibility for Lillian's care.
- At some point after 1983, Russell West withdrew Lillian from a local day program for mentally handicapped persons, isolating her from outside contact.
- Around Thanksgiving 1992, Lillian became bedridden, her health declined significantly, and she refused to eat.
- On December 31, 1992, Russell West brought Lillian to a hospital emergency room.
- Medical personnel discovered Lillian was suffering from severe malnutrition, dehydration, and numerous advanced bedsores, some of which exposed muscle and bone.
- On January 17, 1993, Lillian West died from sepsis and pneumonia precipitated by the bedsores and neglect.
Procedural Posture:
- Russell West was indicted for manslaughter in the second degree, and Ann West was indicted for complicity in the Montgomery Circuit Court (a trial court).
- The cases were consolidated, and a jury trial was held.
- The jury found Russell West guilty of the lesser included offense of reckless homicide and Ann West guilty of complicity to reckless homicide.
- The trial court entered final judgments sentencing each appellant to one year of imprisonment.
- Russell and Ann West (appellants) appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky (an intermediate appellate court).
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 person who voluntarily assumes the care of a helpless adult have a legal duty to provide care sufficient to support a conviction for reckless homicide based on an omission to act?
Opinions:
Majority - Combs, Judge.
Yes. A person who voluntarily assumes the care of a helpless adult establishes a legal duty to provide care, and a failure to perform that duty can form the basis for a reckless homicide conviction. While a homicide conviction generally requires a criminal act, an omission can suffice where a legal duty to act exists. This legal duty, which must be more than a mere moral obligation, can be imposed by statute or common law. The court found that a duty existed here under both Kentucky statute (KRS 209.020), which defines a 'caretaker' as one who voluntarily assumes responsibility for an adult's care, and the common law principles articulated in Jones v. United States. The Wests met the Jones test for creating a duty by voluntarily assuming care for Lillian, a helpless person, and then secluding her from others who might have rendered aid. The evidence of Lillian's horrific condition was sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude that Russell West recklessly breached this duty, causing her death.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that in Kentucky, criminal liability for homicide can arise from an omission, specifically in the context of caregiver neglect. By adopting the well-established four-part test from Jones v. United States, the court provides a clear analytical framework for determining when a legal duty of care exists. The ruling confirms that the duty does not need to be specified within the homicide statute itself but can be derived from other statutes or common law principles, such as the voluntary assumption of care. This precedent strengthens protections for vulnerable adults by holding voluntary caregivers accountable for reckless neglect that results in death.
