Commonwealth v. Bullock

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act against vagueness, substantive due process, and equal protection challenges. The court held that the trial court erred by failing to define criminal negligence for the jury, but concluded the error was harmless because the verdict necessarily established the requisite culpability. The court also determined that “accidentally” was a term of common usage that did not require a specialized jury instruction.

Holdings

1. The Act is not unconstitutionally vague. Because the statute defines an unborn child to include all stages of gestation, viability outside the womb is immaterial; ordinary persons can understand that death occurs when a biologically living embryo or fetus permanently ceases to have vital functions.
2. The Act does not violate substantive due process because Bullock identified no fundamental right to unilaterally kill an unborn child carried by another person, and the State has an important and legitimate interest in protecting fetal life at all stages of pregnancy.
3. The exemption for a pregnant woman who commits a crime against her own unborn child satisfies equal protection because the mother is not similarly situated to other persons, the classification is neither suspect nor quasi-suspect, and it bears a rational relationship to legitimate legislative purposes.
4. The trial court erred by refusing to define criminal negligence, rather than ordinary tort negligence, for the jury because criminal negligence is an element of the offense.
5. The instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not require a new trial.
6. The trial court was not required to provide a special definition of "accidentally." In this context, the term has its common meaning and signifies the absence of purpose or intent to kill the unborn child.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pennsylvania's Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act is unconstitutionally vague because it does not require the fetus to be viable outside the womb.
2. Whether the Act violates substantive due process by imposing criminal liability for causing the death of a nonviable fetus.
3. Whether the Act violates equal protection by exempting a pregnant woman from criminal liability for crimes against her own unborn child while imposing liability on other persons.
4. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to define criminal negligence in instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child.
5. Whether the trial court erred by failing to define "accidentally" in the jury instruction.

Disposition

affirmed