Anna Nicole Smith: Was She Murdered?

The Wacky Analyst

April 1, 2007

Speculation continues to swirl around the strange death of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel. The most recent significant news on her death comes from the medical examiner, who announced his opinion that the death was an accidental overdose of a number of prescription medications. Some may think that this ends any criminal invesigation into the matter. From a legal perspective, this is not accurate. Crimes ranging from murder to negligent homicide still remain as a possibility.

First, one should note that police and prosecuting attorneys are not bound by opinions of the local medical examiner. Medical examiners often disagree, and prosecutors commonly call outside medical examiners and other experts to support their legal theories.

Second, several types of homicides actually involve accidental deaths. Even some murders are not precisely intentional acts. For example, three main types of second-degree murder exist in many states. The first type occurs where the defendant intended to kill, the second involves an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and the third type is often regarded as a "depraved heart" murder. A depraved-heart murder generally occurs where the defendant exhibited behavior that shows an extremely reckless indifference to human life.

The other most common types of accidental death that amount to homicide are manslaughter and negligent homicide. Although states vary, the basic concept behind these two crimes is an act or failure to act where the defendant failed to recognize a high risk of death or serious bodily injury. Additionally, the prosecutor must prove gross negligence on the part of the defendant. In simple terms, gross negligence occurs where the defendant greatly deviates from what a reasonable person would have done (or not done) under the same or similar circumstances.

Thus, the fact that Smith died an accidental death does not foreclose the possibility that a homicide, and possibly even nurder, occurred in this death.

The fact that Smith and her son died in a similar fashion over a short period of time certainly raises a suspicious eyebrow. Interestingly, Howard K. Stern was also in the same room as both Anna Nicole and Daniel on the respective dates of their deaths (although not necessarily at the exact time of death). However, such circumstantial evidence, by itself, generally amounts to only enough suspicion to start an investigation and make further inquiries. Without more, the authorities will have an uphill battle trying to prove a murder or other homicide.

Nonetheless, certain types of evidence would lend credence to a homicide theory. For example, if Howard K. Stern or another individual participated in procuring this cocktail of drugs with the actual intent of causing Smith to take the drugs and eventually die of an overdose, then a strong case of murder would emerge. But the authorities would most likely have to prove both participation in the procuring or taking of the drugs and simultaneous intent to kill Smith. A mere hope that Smith would die is probably insufficient to prove a homicide. The reason for this is that no one usually has legal duty to care for another adult. While a parent clearly has a legal duty to look after the well-being of his or her own child, the same kind of duty of protection does not exist regarding the welfare of an adult unless another person somehow assumes that duty.

An example of this would be a private nurse. The nurse hired by Smith conceivably owed a legal duty of reasonable care to Smith, but an individual like Stern would generally have no such duty. However, if Stern