Subject: Case Brief Date: September 11, 2011 Commonwealth v. Twitchell, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 416 Mass.

114, 1993, Casebook at page 202, Judge Wilkins Facts 1. Ds are practicing Christian Scientists and believe in healing by spiritual treatment. Therefore, they failed to seek medical treatment during their sons illness. And finally, their dead. 2. Ds were charged of involuntary manslaughter. 3. D argued that spiritual treatment provision in G.L. c. 273, 1 protect them from criminal liability for manslaughter. Procedural History 1. Trial court rejected the Ds claim. 2. The case was appealed. Issue Whether or not spiritual treatment provision in G.L. c. 273, 1 protect D from criminal liability for manslaughter? Disposition Judgment reversed. Holding The affirmative defense that D reasonably believed that they could rely on spiritual treatment without fear of criminal prosecution based on the Christian Science publication shall be presented to the jury as a matter of fact. Reasoning 1. Parents have duty to seek medical attentions for a childs illness. If they violate such duty due to their wantonness or recklessness, they shall be charged of involuntary manslaughter. 2. The spiritual healing provision in G.L. c. 273 did not block a prosecution for manslaughter.

The spiritual treatment provision protects against criminal charges of neglect and of willful failure to provide proper medical care and says nothing about protection against criminal charges based on wanton or reckless conduct. 3. Attorney General gave an opinion which may lead to a misunderstanding that parents who fail to provide medical services to children on the basis of religious beliefs are not subject to criminal prosecution in any circumstances. But no evidence shows that Ds were aware of such opinion. The Christian Science publication added the Attorney Generals opinion. 4. The affirmative defense that D reasonably believed that they could rely on spiritual treatment without fear of criminal prosecution based on the Christian Science publication shall be presented to the jury as a matter of fact.

Separate Opinion Judge Nolan issued the dissenting opinion on the basis that The publication does not exclude criminal liability for common law manslaughter. Therefore, it shall be excluded from the trial. Therefore, Ds reliance on the publication shall not be regarded as the reliance on the official statement of law. The publication shall not be considered by a jury.