State v. Lester
| Decision Date | 06 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 19000[13].,19000[13]. |
| Citation | 127 Minn. 282,149 N.W. 297 |
| Parties | STATE v. LESTER. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Douglas County; William L. Parsons, Judge.
Charles A. Lester was indicted for manslaughter in the second degree, and, a demurrer to the indictment being overruled, the case is certified to the Supreme Court. Order affirmed.
A medical man, or a person assuming to act as such, will be held guilty of ‘culpable negligence,’ within the meaning of G. S. 1913, s 8612, subd. 3, defining manslaughter in the second degree as homicide committed without design to effect death, ‘by any act, procurement, or culpable negligence’ not constituting a higher crime, where he has exhibited gross incompetency or inattention, or wanton indifference to his patient's safety.
An indictment under this statute need not allege knowledge on defendant's part of probability of consequences from the acts or omissions charged; nor is it necessary to charge defendant's duty in the premises, nor set up a specific standard of duty, nor to allege ‘culpable’ or any other degree of negligence eo nomine, nor set out defendant's acts in any other than general terms and as ultimate facts.
The court takes judicial notice that X-ray machines sometimes inflict serious burns.
An indictment against a physician, under the statute cited, for manslaughter in the second degree, committed in connection with the operation of an X-ray machine, sustained as against a demurrer on the ground that the facts charged were not stated with sufficient certainty to, and did not, constitute a public offense. Geo. L. Treat, of Alexandria, and Durment, Moore & Oppenheimer, of St. Paul, for appellant.
Hugh E. Leach, of Alexandria, Lyndon A. Smith, Atty. Gen., and John C. Nethaway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant demurred to an indictment accusing him of the offense of manslaughter in the second degree, on the ground that the acts or omissions charged were not stated with sufficient certainty to, and did not, constitute a public offense. The court below overruled the demurrer and certified the case here.
[4] The indictment was found under G. S. 1913, § 8612, subd. 3, declaring manslaughter to be of this degree when committed without any design to effect death, ‘by any act, procurement, or culpable negligence’ not constituting a higher crime. Omitting formal parts, it alleged that defendant--
‘without authority of law, but without a design to effect her death, did feloniously use and employ upon the body of one Ruth Nass an electrical machine or instrument commonly known as an X-ray machine (a more particular description of said instrument or machine being to said grand jury unknown) for the purpose of taking an X-ray picture of the hip of the said Ruth Nass for the sole use and purpose of said Charles A. Lester, with her consent, extracted from her upon his assurance that the exposure of such X-ray would do her no harm; and she relying upon his assurance as a medical man, and not otherwise, said Charles A. Lester did then and there attempt to take such picture by subjecting the body of said Ruth Nass to the rays of said machine, and did then and there turn and apply said X-ray upon the body of the said Ruth Nass in and over the region of her right hip, the said machine being a dangerous instrument, except when operated by a skillful manager it was not necessarily dangerous, which danger the said C. A. Lester knew, or, in the exercise of the care required under the circumstances, he should have known, and said Charles A. Lester did then and there place the tube of the said X-ray unreasonably close to the body of her, the said Ruth Nass, and, disregarding the duty he owed her, he did negligently and carelessly fail to give her, during the time of such exposure to such X-ray as aforesaid, such proper and requisite attention as was requisite and proper to prevent burning her, and did operate such X-ray in an unskillful manner, and did keep her body so exposed for an unreasonable length of time, thereby inflicting upon the body of her, the said Ruth Nass, in the region of the right hip, as aforesaid, a mortal burn and injury known as an X-ray burn, from which mortal burn so caused as aforesaid she, the said Ruth Nass, died.’
This court has frequently declared that an indictment must set out the complete criminal offense charged, and every essential element must be alleged directly and certainly; the omission of an allegation without which a criminal offense would not be described being fatal. State v. MacDonald, 105 Minn. 251, 117 N. W....
To continue reading
Request your trial