Difference between revisions of "State v. Naramore"
CPWebmaster (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | In ''State v. Naramore'', 25 Kan. App. 2d 302, 322 (1998), the Supreme Court of [[Kansas]] overturned a conviction of Dr. Stan Naramore for administering large quantities of painkillers to two patients who subsequently died. It found that where there is a bona fide dispute in the medical community, then reasonable doubt about criminal intent exists as a matter of law. “[T]here is a reason why there has yet to be in Anglo-American law an affirmed conviction of a physician for homicide arising out of medical treatment based on such highly controverted expert evidence as here.” ''Id.'' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | The Tenth Circuit adhered to the Naramore ruling in reversing a conviction for involuntary manslaughter of a physician in connection with the death of a patient. ''United States v. Wood'', 207 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2000). “Well-intentioned but inappropriate medical care, standing alone, does not raise an inference that a killing was deliberate, willful, and premeditated.” ''Id.'' at 1232. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | [[Category:Law]] | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 12:09, October 5, 2007
In State v. Naramore, 25 Kan. App. 2d 302, 322 (1998), the Supreme Court of Kansas overturned a conviction of Dr. Stan Naramore for administering large quantities of painkillers to two patients who subsequently died. It found that where there is a bona fide dispute in the medical community, then reasonable doubt about criminal intent exists as a matter of law. “[T]here is a reason why there has yet to be in Anglo-American law an affirmed conviction of a physician for homicide arising out of medical treatment based on such highly controverted expert evidence as here.” Id.
The Tenth Circuit adhered to the Naramore ruling in reversing a conviction for involuntary manslaughter of a physician in connection with the death of a patient. United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2000). “Well-intentioned but inappropriate medical care, standing alone, does not raise an inference that a killing was deliberate, willful, and premeditated.” Id. at 1232.