State Of New York V. Jorgensen Case Brief

People of the State of New York v. Jennifer Jorgensen was criminal court case that went to the Court of Appeals in New York. Judge Pigott gives his/her opinion. Jennifer Jorgensen was 34 weeks on the date of the crime. Defendant was under the influenced of both drugs and alcohol. Jorgensen was driving under the influence on Whiskey Road in Suffolk County. She swerved into the westbound lane hitting Robert and Mary Kelly which caused for them to both die. Due to the accident, the defendant was taken into the hospital due to fetal distress signs. Jorgensen allowed the doctors to perform a cesarean section on her. However, the baby died six days after the procedure due to injuries caused by the car accident. The State indicted the defendant

The appeal mainly focuses on the issue of whether a pregnant woman can be charged with manslaughter for reckless conduct that caused her fetus to be injured in her utero. The child was born alive, unfortunately, succumbed to the injuries 6 days later. In the appeal, the court held evident that according to legislature, Penal Law 125.05 and 125.05, did not mean to make pregnant women criminally responsible for reckless conduct to themselves and their unborn child unless it is done intentionally. The main issue for this appeal is how to interpret the situation. Penal law 125.15 states a person can be charged with manslaughter in the second degree when “ [h]e [or she] recklessly causes the death of another person”. It was obvious that Jorgensen recklessly caused the death of the Kellys. But can the same be said for her unborn child? Penal Law 125.05 defines the victim of homicide and states "a human being who has been born and is alive." When the injuries were done to the fetus, it was done in the utero. The fetus did not die inside the utero though, the fetus died outside of the body. Should Jorgensen be liable for injuries caused before the birth. In the appeal, the current statutory states that no, Jorgensen can’t be liable for

Judge Fahey restates the case. Judge Fahey stated the prosecutors undisputedly showed that defendant went into the opposite lane and cause the accident and death of the Kellys. The defendant was acquitted of the manslaughter of the Kellys, but charge with the manslaughter of the baby. Judge Fahey stated he agreed with the majority on the issue is interpretation of the case. However, Judge Fahey disagrees with how the pertaining statues were read. Judge Fahey starts with the Homicide statue. Judge Fahey looks at Penal Law 125.00 which defines homicide in a more relevant way as “death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than [24] weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree.” This statue clearly applies to the case because it focuses on unborn and born children. Judge Fahey, furthermore, deals with the issue of reckless conduct in the case. The baby was not a person yet when the crime occurred in the Judge’s eyes. Judge Fahey argued that the defendant can’t be charged with the baby’s death because of her reckless actions, according to the existing penal law. Judge Fahey claims his/her decision was based on a case named People v. Hall. In People v. Hall, the “born alive” rule is