Scribd
Upload
13 views2 pages

14 - Taking Responsibility - Case Brief - Commonwealth v. Pestinikas

Uploaded by

tom.ltc84
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views2 pages

14 - Taking Responsibility - Case Brief - Commonwealth v. Pestinikas

Uploaded by

tom.ltc84
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Case Brief: Commonwealth v.

Pestinikas
Citation:
Commonwealth v. Pestinikas, 617 A.2d 1339 (1992)

Court:
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date:
1992

Judges:
Justice (Name not specified in the excerpt)

Facts:

Joseph Kly, a seriously ill man, was hospitalized and later chose to live with the Pestinikas, who
were family friends. Upon discharge, medical personnel instructed the Pestinikas on how to care
for Kly, including providing medication, but they failed to follow these instructions. Rather than
giving Kly a proper room in their home, the Pestinikas placed him in a rural, poorly maintained
house that lacked basic amenities such as insulation, refrigeration, a bathroom, a sink, and a
telephone. The room was exposed to the elements due to cracks in the walls.

In addition to this neglect, the Pestinikas actively concealed Kly's whereabouts. They misled
Kly’s family by providing contradictory information about his location and by telling some
people that he was living with them in their home. The Pestinikas also manipulated Kly's savings
account, adding their names to it and withdrawing large sums of money (totaling $30,000) that
Kly had designated for his care, leaving only $55 when Kly died.

When Kly died, emergency personnel found him emaciated and severely malnourished. His ribs
and sternum were pronounced, and it was later determined through an autopsy that Kly had died
from starvation and dehydration. Despite Mrs. Pestinikas’ claim that she had fed him cookies and
orange juice on the morning of his death, the autopsy suggested that Kly had likely been dead for
as many as 39 hours before his body was found.

Issue:

Whether the Pestinikas could be convicted of murder based on their failure to provide food and
medical care to Kly, who had entrusted them with his well-being under a legal duty.

Holding:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Pestinikas' conviction for murder. The Court
concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish that they had assumed a legal duty to
care for Kly by virtue of a contractual agreement, and that their malicious withholding of food
and medical care resulted in Kly’s death from starvation and dehydration.

Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the Pestinikas had entered into an implicit contract with Kly, whereby
they undertook responsibility for his care and well-being, to the exclusion of his family. This
contract created a legal duty to provide Kly with the necessary care to preserve his life, including
food, shelter, and medical attention. The Court found that by withholding these necessities, the
Pestinikas caused Kly’s death.

The Court emphasized that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the Pestinikas acted
with malice, given their affirmative efforts to conceal Kly’s whereabouts and the large amounts
of money they withdrew from his account. Their actions were not just neglectful; they were
malicious, as they deliberately failed to provide Kly with the food and medical care that he
needed, leading to his starvation and dehydration.

By intentionally withholding care, the Pestinikas were deemed to have committed a criminal act,
and the Court held that they were properly convicted of murder, as their actions directly resulted
in Kly’s death.

Conclusion:

The conviction of the Pestinikas for murder was affirmed, as the Court determined they had a
legal duty to care for Kly, and their failure to provide that care led to his death. The Court
concluded that their actions, characterized by malicious neglect and deceit, were sufficient to
support a conviction of murder.

Significance:

This case is significant in its clarification of the legal duties owed by individuals who assume
responsibility for another's care. It underscores the importance of contractual or implied
responsibilities in cases of neglect and provides an example of how malicious intent can lead to a
conviction for murder when the failure to act causes death.

You might also like