Difference between revisions of "State v. Naramore"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Mark54 (Talk); changed back to last version by Samwell)
m (bold)
 
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.''
+
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.   
 
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]]
 
[[Category:Law]]

Latest revision as of 04:04, November 3, 2008

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.