The judges of the Old Bailey in England have a fascinating criminal case before them. Paul Harvey, 46, has pleaded guilty to manslaughter after killing Gloria Laguna, a former American diplomat in India. The weapon was the television remote. It is difficult to see why Harvey was charged with manslaughter in the case given the unique elements in the case.
Laguna, 48, died from a massive brain hemorrhage due to a rare condition that neither she nor Harvey were aware of.
The couple was going to church but decided to stay home and watch television instead (a moral lesson to be sure). They began to argue over maintenance he was paying to a stepdaughter from an earlier marriage. The electrical engineer lost his temper during an argument and threw the remote at his wife — something that would legitimately result in a possible simply battery charge. However, the remote hit an artery, which (due to the condition) resulted in a massive injury. The condition results in an unusual weakness in the vertebral arteries
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236944/Man-killed-wife-remote-remote-control-jailed-years.html#ixzz0a3tSO4TgHe immediately called the police and paramedics, telling them “What have I done? . . . I think I have killed my wife. I threw a remote control at my wife’s head.”
He was sent to prison for three years.
I am afraid I do not understand this one. He threw a 4 oz remote and resulted in a clearly unforeseeable impact. I do not question that he should have been criminally charged but this seems a tad tough given the facts of the case.
Sounds like constructive manslaughter to me, or as an old crim law professor of mine called it: “(un)lucky shot manslaughter.” See D.P.P. v. Newbury, 2 All E.R. 365 (1976).
If I were a new age guru I would suggest that some sort of Karma was involved ……..
But for….
If a person dies of a heart attack during a purse snatching isn’t that an automatic murder or manslaughter charge? Unintended consequences may mitigate but they don’t excuse as I recall. What makes this different?
What about the egg shell thin skull rule? Or only in civil cases?
I guess this case proves you take the Plaintiff and in this case the Decadent where you find them. Manslaughter at worst.
And to think, had he simply tasered his wife, all would be well…