Commonwealth v. Twitchell

{{Infobox court case

|name = Commonwealth v. Twitchell

|court = Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

|image =

|imagesize =

|imagelink =

|imagealt =

|caption =

|full name = Commonwealth v. David R. Twitchell; Commonwealth v. Ginger Twitchell

|date decided = {{start date|1993|08|11|df=}}

|citations = [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2040533/commonwealth-v-twitchell/ 416 Mass. 114]; 617 N.E.2d 609

|ECLI =

|transcripts =

|judges = Paul J. Liacos, Herbert P. Wilkins, Ruth Abrams, Joseph R. Nolan, Neil L. Lynch, Francis Patrick O'Connor, John M. Greaney

|number of judges =

|decision by = Wilkins

|dissenting = Nolan

|prior actions =

|appealed from =

|appealed to =

|subsequent actions =

|related actions =

|opinions =

|keywords =

|italic title = yes

}}

Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 416 Mass. 114, 617 N.E.2d 609 (1993),{{Cite web|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2040533/commonwealth-v-twitchell/|title=Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 617 N.E.2d 609, 416 Mass. 114 – CourtListener.com|website=CourtListener|language=en-us|access-date=2018-12-06}} was the most prominent of a series of criminal cases, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in which parents who were members of the Christian Science church were prosecuted for the deaths of children whose medical conditions had been treated only by Christian Science prayer.

Manslaughter charges

In 1988, Massachusetts prosecutors charged David and Ginger Twitchell with manslaughter in the 1986 death of their two-year-old son Robyn. Robyn Twitchell died of a peritonitis caused by a bowel obstruction that medical professionals declared would have been easily correctable.

The Twitchells' defense contended that the couple were within their First Amendment rights to treat their son's illness with prayer and that Massachusetts had recognized this right in an exemption to the statute outlawing child neglect.

Conviction and overturning

The Twitchells were convicted of involuntary manslaughter. They were sentenced to ten years probation and required to bring their remaining children to regular visits to a pediatrician.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/06/us/in-child-deaths-a-test-for-christian-science.html|title=In Child Deaths, a Test for Christian Science|last=Margolick|first=David|date=1990-08-06|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-12-06|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite news|url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970633-1,00.html|title=Law: Convicted Of Relying on Prayer|last=Sanders|first=Alain L.|date=1990-07-16|work=Time|access-date=2018-12-06|language=en-US|issn=0040-781X}} The conviction was overturned in 1993 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on a legal technicality. Robert Gittens, speaking for the prosecutors' office commented, "the law is now clear: parents cannot sacrifice the lives of their children in the name of religious freedom."{{cite web| agency= Associated Press |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-08-12-mn-23106-story.html|title=Court Overturns Conviction of Christian Science Couple |work=Los Angeles Times |date=1993-08-12 |access-date=2013-01-19}}