Logourl black
From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...

Commonwealth v. Pestinikas

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
617 A.2d 1339 (1992)


Facts

Joseph Kly met Walter and Helen Pestinikas (defendants) when he contacted them about prearranging his funeral. Kly was living with his stepson and was later hospitalized and diagnosed with a disease that made it difficult for him to swallow food. When he was discharged, Kly said he did not want to return to his stepson’s home, and arrangements were instead made for the Pestinikases to care for Kly in their home. On the day of Kly’s discharge, the Pestinikases were given care instructions and a prescription to fill for Kly. The Pestinikases orally agreed to follow the instructions and provide Kly with food, shelter, care, and the required medicine. According to the evidence at trial, the prescription was never filled. Instead of allowing Kly to live in their home, the Pestinikases placed him in a small, enclosed porch of a distant building, where there was no insulation or bathroom and he was exposed to outside weather conditions. The Pestinikases took Kly to the bank where they had their names added to his account. Over time, the Pastinikases withdrew over $30,000 from the account. About two years after Kly’s discharge from the hospital, he was found dead, and an autopsy revealed starvation and dehydration as the causes of death. The Pestinikases were charged with murder, and at trial, the judge instructed the jury that the defendants could not be found guilty of a malicious killing for failing to supply food, shelter, and medicine, unless a duty to do so had been imposed upon them by contract. The jury charge was based on a state statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 301(b), which states that liability may not be based on an omission unless the omission is sufficient as defined by the criminal statute or a duty to perform the omitted act was “otherwise imposed by law.” The jury found the defendants guilty of third-degree murder. The Pastinikases appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were incorrect.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wieand, J.)

Dissent (McEwen, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 252,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.