Case brief summary
Murder laws only cover killing a 'human being,' meaning a fetus must be born alive. Courts cannot punish someone for a crime that wasn't clearly defined as illegal when they acted.
Facts
A man attacked his pregnant ex wife, hitting her stomach and face after learning she was pregnant by another man. The viable fetus died from the injuries and was stillborn.
Procedural history
The man was charged with murder. When the trial court refused to dismiss that charge, he asked the California Supreme Court to block the murder prosecution directly.
Issue
Does an unborn but viable fetus, meaning one developed enough to likely survive outside the womb, count as a 'human being' under California's murder statute?
Holding
The court held that the fetus was not a 'human being' under the murder statute, so the man could not be prosecuted for murder, though other charges could still proceed.
Reasoning
California's 1850 murder law required a victim to be born alive, and lawmakers never expanded it to cover fetuses. Courts, not judges, must create new crimes, so applying murder here would be unfair.
Opinions
Majority (Mosk): The fetus was not a 'human being' under the murder statute based on its history and wording, so expanding the law now would violate separation of powers and fair notice.
Dissent (Burke): Common law already treated a quickened or viable fetus as a form of human life deserving protection, so the majority's narrow reading defies the Legislature's intent and common sense.