Hawaii Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Of Woman Whose Infant Died Due To Crystal Meth Poisoning

The Hawaii Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously ruled that state law does not permit the prosecution of women who engage in risky behavior during pregnancy that leads to the death of a newborn, overturning the conviction of a woman whose infant died shortly after birth because of crystal methamphetamine poisoning, the Honolulu Advertiser reports (Kobayashi, Honolulu Advertiser, 11/30). An Oahu, Hawaii, grand jury in October 2003 indicted Tayshea Aiwohi, who admitted using crystal meth -- also known as "ice" -- during pregnancy and while breastfeeding her infant son Treyson. Public Defender Todd Eddins, Aiwohi's attorney, in early March 2004 filed three motions for dismissal of the case, arguing that state law "does not encompass the reckless killing of a newborn by his mother for conduct which allegedly occurred prior to his birth." Under Hawaii law, manslaughter charges can be brought against people only if they recklessly cause the death of another person, and state law requires that a child be born alive in order to be considered a person. Hawaii Circuit Judge Michael Town in August 2004 sentenced Aiwohi -- whose infant son had four times the adult toxicity level of methamphetamine in his system at his death -- to 10 years probation. Aiwohi's case represented the first time the state held a woman criminally liable for behavior during pregnancy that led to the death of an infant (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/21).

Rationale
The state Supreme Court held that Aiwohi could not be prosecuted under state law because when she smoked the drug, the fetus was not born, and thus, not a person under state law, the Adviser reports. Justice Paula Nakayama in a 38-page opinion wrote that an "overwhelming majority" of U.S. courts have issued similar decisions protecting pregnant women from prosecution, and an "overwhelming majority" of courts also have upheld prosecutions of people who caused injury to a pregnant woman that caused the death of her fetus. Nakayama wrote that the two types of cases are "mutually exclusive" as one deals with the prosecution of a woman's actions while pregnant and the other deals with injuries to a pregnant woman caused by a third party. In a footnote, Nakayama wrote that the "logical implication" of the ruling is that a "third party" is protected from prosecution for the death of a fetus because of injury to the pregnant woman. However, Glenn Kim, deputy prosecutor for the case, said that a person in that case could still be prosecuted for injuring a pregnant woman. Three of the four other justices agreed with this opinion, while Associate Justice Simeon Acoba agreed with the ruling but based his opinion on a different reason, and he filed a separate opinion in the case (Honolulu Advertiser, 11/30).


"Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.


Help us complete a Work and Well Being Survey that is Collaborating in. We are getting no financial remuneration for this project:
Click Here to Go to the Survey