West v. Commonwealth - 935 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996)

Rule:

The failure to perform a duty imposed by law may create criminal liability. Clearly, in the case of reckless homicide or manslaughter, the duty must be found outside the definition of the crime itself. The duty of care imposed may be found in the common law or in another statute. A caretaker's duty is defined at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 209.020(6) as follows: "Caretaker" means an individual or institution who has the responsibility for the care of the adult as a result of family relationship, or who has assumed the responsibility for the care of the adult person voluntarily, or by contract, or agreement.

Facts:

Prosecution of defendants, husband and wife, was precipitated by the death of the husband's disabled sister, born with Down's Syndrome and a heart ailment. Defendants were alleged to have caused the sister's death by their failure to care adequately for her physical needs and to secure the medical assistance she required. The husband was indicted for manslaughter while the wife was indicted as a complicitor, and the indictments were consolidated for trial. Medical witnesses testified that caretaker neglect ultimately led to the sister's death. The trial court convicted defendants. On appeal, the defendants maintained that neither of them had a duty to care for the disabled sister or to provide the sister with medical assistance. Thus, the defendants concluded that neither of them could be convicted of an offense based upon the failure to provide such care.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the defendants be held liable for the death of the defendant husband’s disabled sister? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On review, the court noted that in the case of Jones v. United States, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 352, 308 F.2d  [**8]  307 (D.C. Cir. 1962), the court laid down at least four situations in which the failure to act may constitute breach of a legal duty. One can be held criminally liable: first, where a statute imposed a duty to care for another; second, where one stood in a certain status relationship to another; third, where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another; and fourth, where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid. Applying the foregoing in the instant case, the court held that the defendants met the last of the Jones tests particularly aptly in voluntarily accepting responsibility for the disabled sister’s care and thereafter isolating her from contacts that might have resulted in her aid or assistance. Additionally, Kentucky's Protection of Adults statutes imposed a duty on adult caretakers to avoid the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of their charges. The court further held that it was not unreasonable for the jury to have believed that the husband acted recklessly with respect to his duty toward the sister or that the wife acted as a complicitor. In affirming, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions.