Prohibition of Criminal Liability for the Murder of a Viable Unborn Child in West Virginia

Introduction

In the case of STATE ex rel. Jeff ATKINSON v. Hon. Ronald E. WILSON, Judge, et al. (175 W. Va. 352), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addressed a pivotal legal issue concerning the criminal liability for the murder of a viable unborn child. Jeff Atkinson, the appellant, sought to halt his murder trial by arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him for the murder of Teri Lynn Gooch's unborn child, Mark Alan Gooch, who was determined to have died shortly after his mother's robbing and killing.

This case brought to the forefront the contentious "born-alive" rule in criminal law, questioning whether existing statutes and common law principles adequately address the sanctity of unborn life within the context of murder charges.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia concluded that the Circuit Court of Hancock County lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Jeff Atkinson for the murder of a viable unborn child. The court emphasized that neither the West Virginia murder statute, W. Va. Code, §61-2-1, nor prevailing common law principles provide criminal sanctions for the murder of an unborn child. The court highlighted the traditional common law stance that murder requires the victim to be a living person, a principle not currently overridden by legislative action in West Virginia.

Consequently, the court granted the writ of prohibition, effectively halting the trial, and underscored that such significant legal determinations should be the prerogative of the legislature rather than the judiciary.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cited Baldwin v. Butcher (155 W. Va. 431, 184 S.E.2d 428, 1971) as a foundational case where the court recognized the right to file a wrongful death action on behalf of a viable unborn child. This case was instrumental in establishing that, under tort law, a viable unborn child could be considered for damages resulting from wrongful death.

Additionally, the court referenced multiple English common law sources, including 4 S. Stephen, Commentaries on the Laws of England and W. Blackstone's Commentaries, which historically uphold the "born-alive" rule—asserting that murder requires a victim who is alive at the time of the act.

American precedents were also discussed, such as KEELER v. SUPERIOR COURT (2 Cal.3d 619, 470 P.2d 617, 1970) and PEOPLE v. GREER (79 Ill.2d 103, 37 Ill.Dec. 313, 402 N.E.2d 203, 1980), which reinforced the notion that without specific legislation, the killing of an unborn child does not constitute murder under common law.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed its traditional test for prohibition, as articulated in STATE ex rel. ARNOLD v. EGNOR (166 W. Va. 411, 275 S.E.2d 15, 1981), determining whether the trial court had jurisdiction or exceeded its powers. The majority found that the trial court overstepped by attempting to apply an undeveloped legal principle regarding the murder of an unborn child.

A critical aspect of the reasoning was the delineation between areas where courts can evolve common law (e.g., tort law) versus domains reserved for legislative action (e.g., criminal law). The court asserted that the creation and definition of criminal offenses lie squarely within the legislative branch's purview, citing constitutional provisions and emphasizing judicial restraint.

The majority also contrasted their stance with other jurisdictions where courts had attempted to expand common law criminal definitions, noting unresolved issues and emphasizing the importance of strict statutory interpretation in criminal matters.

Impact

This judgment sets a clear precedent in West Virginia that without explicit legislative action, the crime of murdering a viable unborn child is not recognized under existing murder statutes or common law. Consequently, future cases with similar circumstances will likely defer to legislative bodies to enact specific laws addressing the criminality of feticide.

Additionally, this decision reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in criminal law, limiting courts from expanding criminal definitions beyond statutory parameters and maintaining the separation of powers by reserving law-making to the legislature.

However, the dissenting opinions highlight potential inconsistencies and the ethical implications of not extending criminal protections to viable unborn children, which may influence future legal debates and legislative actions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Born-Alive Rule

The born-alive rule is a legal doctrine stating that for an act to constitute murder, the victim must be born alive. Under this rule, the death of an unborn child before birth does not qualify as murder because the victim is not considered a living person at the time of the act.

Writ of Prohibition

A writ of prohibition is a legal order issued by a higher court to a lower court, directing it to cease proceedings in a case because it lacks jurisdiction or has exceeded its authority.

Judicial Restraint

Judicial restraint is a philosophy where judges limit the exercise of their own power, often deferring to legislative bodies and existing statutes unless there is a clear constitutional mandate to the contrary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in STATE ex rel. Jeff ATKINSON v. Hon. Ronald E. WILSON, reaffirmed the necessity for legislative action to define and criminalize the murder of a viable unborn child. By granting the writ of prohibition, the court underscored the importance of adhering to established statutory frameworks and respecting the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature.

While the majority emphasized judicial restraint and the traditional common law principles, the dissenting opinions raised significant ethical and legal questions about the protection of unborn life. This case highlights the ongoing tension between evolving societal values and established legal doctrines, potentially paving the way for future legislative reforms in West Virginia.