Create the Brief

• Procedural history
• Issue
• Facts
• Rule of law
• Reasoning
• Holding

For the following case:

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,

v.

Jack KEVORKIAN, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant

Supreme Court of Michigan

447 Mich. 436 (1994), 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994)

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, Chief Justice, and BRICKLEY and ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Justices.

. . . Before the [assisted suicide] statute was enacted, defendant Kevorkian allegedly assisted in the deaths of Sherry Miller and Marjorie Wantz on October 23, 1991.He was indicted by a citizens' grand jury on two counts of murder.After a preliminary examination, the defendant was bound over for trial.In the circuit court, the defendant moved to dismiss, and the circuit judge granted the motion, concluding that assisting in suicide does not fall within the crime of murder.The prosecutor appealed.

Each woman was said to be suffering from a condition that caused her great pain or was severely disabling.Each separately had sought defendant Kevorkian's assistance in ending her life.The women and several friends and relatives met [p. 483] the defendant at a cabin in Oakland County on October 23, 1991.

According to the testimony presented at the defendant's preliminary examination, the plan was to use his "suicide machine."The device consisted of a board to which one's arm is strapped to prevent movement, a needle to be inserted into a blood vessel and attached to IV tubing, and containers of various chemicals that are to be released through the needle into the bloodstream.Strings are tied to two of the fingers of the person who intends to die.The strings are attached to clips on the IV tubing that control the flow of the chemicals.As explained by one witness, the person raises that hand, releasing a drug called methohexital, which was described by expert witnesses as a fast-acting barbiturate that is used under controlled circumstances to administer anesthesia rapidly. When the person falls asleep, the hand drops, pulling the other string, which releases another clip and allows potassium chloride to flow into the body in concentrations sufficient to cause death.

The defendant tried several times, without success, to insert the suicide-machine needle into Ms. Miller's arm and hand.He then left the cabin, returning several hours later with a cylinder of carbon monoxide gas and a mask apparatus.He attached a screw driver to the cylinder, and showed Ms. Miller how to use the tool as a lever to open the gas valve.

The defendant then turned his attention to Ms. Wantz.He was successful in inserting the suicide-machine needle into her arm.The defendant explained to Ms. Wantz how to activate the device so [p. 484] as to allow the drugs to enter her bloodstream.The device was activated, and Ms. Wantz died.

The defendant then placed the mask apparatus on Ms. Miller.The only witness at the preliminary examination who was present at the time said that Ms. Miller opened the gas valve by pulling on the screw driver.The cause of her death was determined to be carbon-monoxide poisoning.

The defendant was indicted on two counts of open murder.He was bound over for trial following a preliminary examination.However, in circuit court, the defendant moved to quash the information and dismiss the charges, and the court granted the motion.

. . . The Court of Appeals majority relied principally on People v. Roberts . . . In Roberts, the defendant's wife was suffering from advanced multiple sclerosis and in great pain.She previously had attempted suicide and, according to the defendant's statements at the plea proceeding, requested that he provide her with poison.He agreed, and placed a glass of poison within her reach.She drank the mixture and died.The defendant was charged with murder.He pleaded guilty, and the trial court determined the crime to be murder in the first degree.

The defendant appealed.He argued, among other things, that because suicide is not a crime in Michigan, and his wife thus committed no offense, he committed none in acting as an accessory before the fact.The Court rejected that argument, explaining: "If we were living in a purely common-law atmosphere with a strictly common-law practice, and defendant were charged with being guilty as an accessory of the offense of suicide, counsel's argument would be more persuasive than it is.But defendant is not charged with that offense.He is charged with murder and the theory of the people was that he committed the crime by means of poison.He has come into court and confessed that he mixed poison with water and placed it within her reach, but at her request.The important question, therefore, arises as to whether what defendant did constitutes murder by means of poison."

. . . the Roberts Court concluded: "We are of the opinion that when defendant mixed the paris green with water and placed it within reach of his wife to enable her to put an end to her suffering by putting an end to her life, he was guilty of murder by means of poison within the meaning of the statute, even though she requested him to do so.By this act he deliberately placed within her reach the means of taking her own life, which she could have obtained in no other way by reason of her helpless condition."

. . . Early decisions indicate that a murder conviction may be based on merely providing the means by which another commits suicide.However, few jurisdictions, if any, have retained the early common-law view that assisting in a suicide is murder.The modern statutory scheme in the majority of states treats assisted suicide as a separate crime, with penalties less onerous than those for murder.. .

Recent decisions draw a distinction between active participation in a suicide and involvement in the events leading up to the suicide, such as providing the means.Frequently, these cases arise in the context of a claim by the defendant that the prosecution should have been brought under an assisted suicide statute.The courts generally have held that a person may be prosecuted for murder if the person's acts went beyond the conduct that the assisted suicide statute was intended to cover. . . [I]n State v. Sexson . . . the defendant was charged with first-degree murder in connection with the fatal shooting of his wife.He was convicted of second-degree murder following a bench trial, and argued on appeal that he should have been prosecuted under the state's assisted suicide statute.

The only fact in dispute in Sexson was whether it was the defendant or the decedent who actually pulled the trigger of the rifle that killed her.It was not disputed that there was a suicide agreement between the two, and that the pact was genuine.The defendant claimed simply to have held the rifle in position while the decedent pulled the trigger, and that he had failed to then kill himself because he "freaked out" when the decedent continued to breathe after being shot.

The appellate court rejected the defendant's argument that he could not be prosecuted under the more general murder statute because of the specific assisted suicide statute.In so doing, the court emphasized that the two statutes proscribed different conduct: "The wrongful act triggering criminal liability for the offense of assisting suicide is "aiding another" in the taking of his or her own life.It is well accepted that "aiding," in the context of determining whether one is criminally liable for their involvement in the suicide of another, is intended to mean providing the means to commit suicide, not actively performing the act which results in death...."

Turning to the evidence presented in Sexson, the court reiterated that the distinction accepted in other jurisdictions between murder and aiding suicide "generally hinges upon whether the defendant actively participates in the overt act directly causing death, or whether he merely provides the means of committing suicide."This distinction applies even where the decedent has given consent or requested that actual assistance be provided.In Sexson, the defendant admitted holding the rifle in a position calculated to assure the decedent's death.The court concluded:"That action transcends merely providing Victim a means to kill herself and becomes active participation in the death of another.". . . In the years since 1920, when Roberts was decided, interpretation of causation in criminal cases has evolved in Michigan to require a closer nexus between an act and a death than was required in Roberts.. . . In the context of participation in a suicide, the distinction recognized inIn re Joseph G . . . constitutes the view most consistent with the overwhelming trend of modern authority. There, the California Supreme Court explained that a conviction of murder is proper if a defendant participates in the final overt act that causes death, such as firing a gun or pushing the plunger on a hypodermic needle. However, where a defendant is involved merely "in the events leading up to the commission of the final overt act, such as furnishing the means ...," a conviction of assisted suicide is proper.. . .

. . . [T]his Court has modified the common law when it perceives a need to tailor culpability to fit the crime more precisely than is achieved through application of existing interpretations of the common law. . . . For the reasons given, we perceive such a need here.Accordingly, we would overrule Roberts to the extent that it can be read to support the view that the common-law definition of murder encompasses the act of intentionally providing the means by which a person commits suicide. Only where there is probable cause to believe that death was the direct and natural result of a defendant's act can the defendant be properly bound over on a charge of murder. Where a defendant merely is involved in the events leading up to the death, such as providing the means, the proper charge is assisting in a suicide. . . . In this case, the lower courts did not have the benefit of the analysis set forth in this opinion for evaluating the degree of participation by defendant Kevorkian in the events leading to the deaths of Ms. Wantz and Ms. Miller.Accordingly, we remand this matter to the circuit court for reconsideration of the defendant's motion to quash in light of the principles discussed in this opinion.