In the episode “Darwinian” a woman strikes a man with her car, trapping him on the hood; she returns home, and leaves him to die in her garage (crying for help until he perishes). At trial, herclawyer produces evidence that a recent injury prior to the car accident was the actual cause of death, and that, being homeless, he was unlikely to recognize his symptoms as being notable enough to seek medical aid. Thus, she’s off the hook except for minor charges (leaving the scene, etc.).
Were other charges possible? I’m thinking wrongful imprisonment (kept him in her garage for a considerable time with no good cause) and felony murder (if he’d been free to seek treatment for being struck by a car, the previous injury would have been discovered and fixed). Is this sensible or am I stretching the law too far?
I doubt the felony murder charge would stick but certainly false imprisonment, leaving the scene/failure to report an accident, involuntary manslaughter/depraved indifference (even if she were not the proximate cause of the injury that led to death, she took no measures to provide aid and did not permit the victim freedom to obtain medical treatment from the other injuries that she caused and would likely have revealed his condition). One also wonders what she did with the body after he died. There is an entire set of potential criminal charges there as well.
I’ve seen that episode, but not recently. Is there evidence that the guy was held in the garage against his will? Garages are generally built to keep people out, not in. If the guy just didn’t try to open the door, or was too badly injured to open it, does that still meet the standard for unlawful imprisonment?
He was stuck on the hood of the car, too injured to leave - and since she drove the car into the garage, unable to get assistance (though she admitted that she could hear him inside her house). Seems like the equivalent of restraining him with a rope, etc
There’s also a feature movie inspired by the incident, and it’s quite terrific: Stuck, the final film directed by Stuart Gordon (Re-Animator). Stars Stephen Rea and Mena Suvari, and was shot in St. John, New Brunswick, of all places.
The term used is “a defendant takes the victim as he finds him”, meaning the defendant has to deal with the consequences of the victim‘s condition. This is often called the “eggshell skull rule”, because even if you just tap a person and they are so fragile they get a brain injury, you are responsible, and can’t argue that they are too frail.
So let’s say homeless guy is a diabetic. He’s fine as long as he takes his insulin shot every day. But, because of this accident, he’s injured and in the garage, and so can’t take his medication. He dies.
The defendant doesn’t get to argue that it was diabetes that killed him. The defendant set in motion the chain of events leading to death.
That’s not quite what happened in the show. If I remember correctly, prior to the car accident the victim had been assaulted and was already dying from internal bleeding.
Doesn’t matter. Killing someone who you know is dying is some form of criminal homicide. If you don’t know they are dying it is certainly criminal homicide. If you caused the death and meet the other elements of the crime you don’t get a free pass because someone is ill or injured.
Under some circumstances it’s even considered attempted murder if you shoot a corpse if you didn’t know they were dead. It would require proof that the suspect was trying to kill the victim and not just desecrate a corpse.