California Supreme Court Okays Broad Application of Fetal Homicide Law.

WASHINGTON (April 5, 2004) - - By a vote of 6-1, the California Supreme Court on April 5 upheld a murder conviction of a man who shot a pregnant woman to death, and then argued that he had not known she was pregnant.

Harold Taylor was convicted of two counts of murder in the 1999 shooting deaths of Patty Fensler and her 11-week to 13-week-old unborn child. A state appeals court reversed the fetal homicide conviction, saying the law did not apply to Taylor because he was not aware of the pregnancy. The California Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, ruling that it is not necessary for the state to prove that an attacker knew of the existence of a fetal victim, as long as the state proves criminal intent towards some victim.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the six-justice majority: "Had one of Fansler's other children died during defendant's assault, there would be no inquiry into whether defendant knew the child was present for implied malice murder liability to attach. Similarly, there is no principled basis on which to require defendant to know Fansler was pregnant to justify an implied malice murder conviction as to her fetus. In battering and shooting Fansler, defendant acted with knowledge of the danger to and conscious disregard for life in general. That is all that is required for implied malice murder. He did not need to be specifically aware how many potential victims his conscious disregard for life endangered."

NRLC Federal Legislative Direc-tor Douglas Johnson commented, "This ruling makes clear that under California law, as under the federal Unborn Victims of Vio-lence Act, if criminal intent towards one victim is ...