Supreme Court of Hawaii Rules Defendant Might Not Be Guilty of Homicide when Family Withdraws Life Support

Suppose that you negligently or intentionally hurt someone, so that they are left critically injured and dependent upon life-sustaining treatment. Further suppose that the victim's family directs clinicians to withdraw treatment and the patient dies. The general rule is that you have "killed" the patient. The withdrawal of life support is not a superseding event that breaks the chain of causation.

But things may work a little differently in Hawaii. Michael Abella severely beat Shelton Higa in a street fight. Twelve days later, Higa's family authorized removing mechanical ventilation and Higa died. 

Abella was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. He lost motions at the trial court. He lost his appeal before the intermediate court of appeal. But he won before the Supreme Court of Hawaii which vacated his conviction and remanded for a new trial.  

In late December 2019, the Supreme Court held that removal of life support might constitute an intervening cause that may absolve a defendant. In Hawaii, unlike almost every other states, this is not a question of law, but is a question of fact for the jury. Moreover, Abella has a reasonable argument, because the victim's prognosis for recovery was still uncertain at the time life support was discontinued.  

In addition to his causation argument, Abella also argued that he was entitled to an acquittal under the Hawaii Uniform Health Care Decisions Act which provides "Death resulting from withholding or withdrawal of health care in accordance with this chapter shall not for any purpose constitute a suicide or homicide." The court held that the immunity applied only to the persons involved in making and carrying out healthcare decisions.