If it can be clearly shown by the medical testimony that death was due to the above or any other latent diseases, the responsibility of the assailant may be lessened or removed. The law looks to this point and is lenient in its punishment in the absence of malice on the part of the assailant. The crime is still manslaughter and may even be murder if the assailant was actuated by malice and the abnormal or unhealthy state of the body of the victim was taken advantage of. Generally there is no intention of murder, but the nature of the wound and the means of infliction will help to show this, which is for the jury rather than the medical witness to decide. There is less ground for mitigation of the punishment if the assailant was aware of the peculiar condition of the wounded person, especially in the case of those notoriously ill or of pregnant women.
Closely allied with this subject are those rare cases where ABNORMAL ANATOMICAL CONDITIONS, such as a thin skull or brittle bones, cause a slight injury to be followed by unexpected and untoward results, not to be looked for in the average individual. In such cases the evidence of the abnormal condition furnished by the medical witness may diminish the responsibility and mitigate the punishment.
Furthermore, the responsibility of the assailant may not be altogether removed, for the question naturally arises, Was death accelerated by the wound? This depends upon the circumstances in each case upon which the medical witness must base his opinion. Maliciously accelerating the death of another is regarded as criminal on the principle that that which accelerates causes. The following cases are quoted from Taylor[631] to illustrate the above distinctions. In Reg. v. Timms (Oxford Lent Ass., 1870) the deceased had been struck on the head by the accused with a hatchet, from which injury he had partly recovered under treatment in twelve days. But six weeks later he was seized with inflammation of the brain, with convulsions, and died. At the autopsy disease of the kidneys was found, and death was referred to this and the inflammation of the brain due to the blows. The prisoner was convicted after the judge had charged the jury that it was manslaughter if they believed that the blows conduced in part to the death of the deceased.
In the following cases there was no connection between the violence and the cause of death. A man struck his father on the head with a hammer and was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, as the injury did not appear serious. The father thought the punishment too little, became much excited, and was hemiplegic six days after the wound was inflicted and died three days later. No injury of the brain was found under a fracture of the inner table at the site of the blow, but a large clot was found in the lateral ventricle which, in the opinion of the medical witnesses, was not dependent on the blow, and the prisoner was acquitted (see Reg. v. Saxon, Lancashire Sum. Ass., 1884). Also in Reg. v. Hodgson (Leeds Sum. Ass., 1876) the prisoner had struck his wife with a belt, a short time after which she fell back and died suddenly. The cause of death was found to be heart disease, and the blow not being causative in producing the fatal result, the prisoner was acquitted. Or again in Reg. v. Thompson (Liverpool Sum. Ass., 1876): The prisoner had stabbed his wife in the cheek. The wound was severe but not mortal. Two days later she was delivered of a child in the infirmary to which she was taken. She died nine days later of puerperal fever. The prisoner was acquitted on the charge of murder, as there was no necessary connection between the wound and the puerperal fever. Acquittals have taken place in cases of death occasioned by terror or dread of impending danger produced by acts of violence, as in the case of Reg. v. Heany (Gloucester Lent Ass., 1875). Here the prisoner in an altercation with his wife, who was suffering from cancer, held up a knife in a threatening manner, but did not touch her. This gave her a shock; she died two days later from fright. As there was no distinct proof that death was accelerated by this act, the prisoner was acquitted of the charge of murder. Taylor[632] found among a large number of cases occurring in England during twenty years that the latent causes of death, as registered in wounded persons, were chiefly inflammation of the thoracic or abdominal viscera, apoplexy, diseases of the heart and large blood-vessels, phthisis, ruptures of the stomach and bowels from disease, internal strangulation, and the rupture of deep-seated abscesses. Sometimes the person was in good health up to the time of injury, while in other cases there was merely a slight indisposition. It was only by carefulness on the part of the medical experts that the true cause of death was ascertained.
Again, it may be claimed that DEATH was not necessarily the result of the wound and was AVOIDABLE BY GOOD MEDICAL TREATMENT. There are many cases of wounds not mortal with proper and skilled treatment which might become so by improper treatment. They may thus become directly mortal by interfering with a source of hemorrhage which had been arrested, or secondarily mortal by infection of the wound by meddlesome treatment. It would depend on the medical witnesses to determine whether and how far the treatment had been responsible for the fatal result. If the wound is not of itself mortal and it has only become so from improper treatment, this should be a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused. Medically speaking, we can seldom make the sharp distinction which Lord Hale did legally between a wound becoming mortal from improper treatment and one in which improper treatment causes death irrespective of the wound. In case of a slight wound this distinction might be possible, but not so in case of severe wounds. Also there would probably be no conviction, as far as the medical evidence is concerned, if the wound was only mortal in consequence of improper treatment and not mortal as its usual and probable result. This may naturally introduce the question of the COMPARATIVE SKILL IN TREATMENT. If death is entirely or partly due to a wound the responsibility of an assailant is not altered by unskilful treatment. The entire question of the relation of the wound to the fatal result and the effect on this result of the treatment employed is left to be determined by the medical experts, and in its solution great care and judgment must be used. Although a given fatal wound might not have caused death under the best possible treatment and surroundings, yet, according to the above rule, the assailant is held responsible as long as the fatal result is due partly, at least, to the wound. Therefore we see the responsibility of the surgeon not only for the life of his patient, but also for that of the prisoner. He should, therefore, not deviate from the ordinary and most accepted practice in such cases, as any such deviation is taken hold of by the counsel for the defence. In fact, every point of the treatment is subjected to criticism.
In a lacerated wound of the foot, if death occurs from tetanus, it may be claimed that death would not have occurred if the foot had been amputated, or, if the foot were amputated and death followed, it may be claimed that amputation was unnecessary and was the cause of death. The surgeon should, therefore, be able to give the best reasons for every step of treatment.
Again, it may be claimed that DEATH was not a necessary result of the wound and WAS AVOIDABLE BUT FOR IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLECT on the part of the wounded person. A man after being wounded may refuse to receive medical assistance, or, after receiving it, may disobey instructions or refuse to submit to an operation proposed. Thus with a compound depressed fracture of the skull the patient may either refuse to see a surgeon, or he may refuse to submit to an operation proposed, or he may with or without operation disobey the instructions as to diet and quiet, and eat or drink heavily and refuse to go to bed. Such a case we can readily imagine might die of meningitis, etc.
If the symptoms of a wound are unfavorable from the start, or if the wound of itself is likely to prove mortal, the responsibility of the assailant is unmitigated by imprudence or neglect of medical assistance by the wounded person. This is not allowed as mitigatory, as a sane man is a free agent and is not obliged to call in or submit to medical treatment. Moreover, a medical witness in many cases could not swear that an operation or other plan of treatment would certainly save life. Thus an amputation of the leg for wound of the foot causing tetanus is by no means a certain means of cure. But we can readily imagine a case where the refusal to submit to the treatment proposed might be an important element in causing death. Thus in a compound depressed fracture of the skull with compression, the medical witnesses would agree that the operation would in all probability save life. This fact would probably be only mitigatory in diminishing the penalty, and, as stated above, would not secure acquittal. But it is none the less important for the medical witness to bear these facts in mind and bring out the facts and conclusions clearly in his testimony.
Death Following Slight Personal Injuries.—Here again the claim might apparently be justified that death was not necessarily due to the trifling injury. And in reality there is commonly some unhealthy state of the body to explain such an unexpected result. When the disease accounting for this unhealthy state of the body is in some other part than the injury, an examination with ordinary care will explain the case. But if the disease and injury are located in the same part, especially in the head, the case is more perplexing, but may be cleared up by careful and thorough examination. Also the usual results of such an injury should be considered, and whether the disease would be a usual result of the injury, or whether the sum total of the pathological conditions found would be accounted for by the violence. It should be remembered that the presence of chronic disease is no excuse. Thus Taylor[633] cites the case of Reg. v. Hapley (Lewes Aut. Ass., 1860), where a boy with chronic disease of the brain suffered from no unusual symptom until he received a severe flogging, which was followed by death in less than three hours. The same author mentions also the following case to show that fatal results may follow very slight and trivial blows. Annan[634] tells of a healthy four-year-old girl who received a slight blow from the shaft of a wheelbarrow on the skin about three inches below the knee. There was even no external mark of violence, and the injury was thought to be so slight as not to require treatment. There was pain, however, which increased on the following day, marked constitutional symptoms appeared, and the child died on the fourth day. Even to the punishment inflicted by schoolmasters death has been imputed.
When DEATH occurs FROM WOUNDS AFTER LONG PERIODS the injury may be admitted, but it may be claimed that death was not necessarily due to the wound. Medically speaking, death is just as much the result of the injury as if it occurred on the spot. Of course, death must be clearly traceable to the usual and probable results of the injury, and not be dependent on any other cause. An examination of the wounded part and of the whole body will enable the medical witness to determine the cause of death and whether it is clearly traceable to the injury. A doubt on this point may lead to acquittal. Certain forms of wounds or wounds in certain localities are especially liable to end fatally after a long delay, but as the direct result of the wound. These are wounds of the head and of the spine. As to the first class, the injured person may apparently recover and be doing well, when he may suddenly die from a cerebral abscess, for instance. This is the result of the injury, but remains a longer or shorter time latent. In wounds of the spine the patient is generally paralyzed below the point of fracture, but is apparently in good health. In a longer or shorter time he may die of a pneumonia, cystitis, or bedsores, which are the known and regular consequences of the injury or injured condition. Astley Cooper cites the case of a man who was injured on the head and died two years later from the effects of the injury, as was clearly made out by the continuance of brain symptoms during the entire period. An interval of eleven years occurred in another head injury between the injury and the fatal result. The first result of the injury was concussion of the brain, and the case is mentioned by Hoffbauer.[635] This long interval is unusual. There is a rule in English law by which the assailant cannot be indicted for murder if the victim of the assault lives a year and a day. Practically this makes little difference, as nearly all cases would die within that time; but the principle is wrong as looked at from the medical standpoint. The protracted cases concern, as above stated, mostly injuries of the head, spine, and chest, among which there are some cases, like the examples cited, where, according to English law, justice would fail to be done.