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

Legal Tips for Rat Poison in Pet Food

Jimmy Boyd

The Wacky Pundit

March 23, 2007


As most pet lovers have already heard, a major company recently distributed pet food contaminated with rat poison all throughout the United States. A rash of kidney failures and even death has scattered across the country.

This incident has even prompted one pet owner to proclaim that the company murdered her pet. While this sentiment is totally understandable under the circumstances, it is important to keep in mind the actual legal rights involved in this situation.

First, there is no such thing as wrongful death for pets. While pets are living and breathing and certainly loving beings, the law does not go quite that far. Although it seems very unemotional, the law generally treats pets merely as personal property. Damages related to the injury or death of a pet are generally the same as damage to any other personal property, such as damage to a house or car.

For example, most pet lovers would consider their pets to be priceless and unreplaceable, but the law generally limits recovery to the value of a similar pet. For instance, if the plaintiff had a dog that generally goes for $500, that would be the amount of damages available to that plaintiff.

However, plaintiffs can receive other damages. In pet cases, these other damages would most likely include vet bills, medication, and any other services related to the injury or death of the pet.

Unfortunately, most courts probably will not award damages for emotional distress. Such damages are usually awarded in cases of personal injury, but pets are regarded as personal property. Because courts do not generally award damages for emotional distress in property-damage cases, most plaintiffs cannot recover for emotional distress.

The good part about this situation for plaintiffs is that it is an easier case to prove than many other types of cases. In most cases, an injured party must prove that the defendant is liable for negligence. Negligence refers to the breach of some legal duty, which is generally a duty to take reasonable care not to harm the person or property of another.

However, the vast majority of states provide for strict liability in product-defect cases. Pet food definitely qualifies as a product in terms of products liability. The advantage of strict liability is that the plaintiff does NOT have to prove that the defendant was negligent. In other words, the mere fact that the pet food contained rat poison in this case is generally enough to show that the defendant is liable and responsible for damages.

Both manufacturers and sellers may be liable in products-liability cases so long as they are in the business of manufacturing or selling those goods. For example, if a pet owner bought pet food at his or her local retail store, that store may also be liable even though it had no idea that the food was contaminated by rat poison. Of course, the actual manufacturer is also responsible even if it had no actual knowledge of the rat poison.

In short, the courts will generally limit damages in pet cases as compared to cases of personal physical injury. Of course, the courts will award the value of the pet, vet bills, and similar expenses. On the other hand, a case like this is easier to prove than most cases because injured pet owners need not prove that the manufacturers and sellers were negligent. The courts generally impose strict liability for product defects even if the defendants had no knowledge whatsoever of the contamination.

Caution: This article is merely a simple introduction to legal issues related to pet-food contamination. It is not legal advice. In addition, laws vary from state to state. Consult a local attorney if your pet has suffered injury or you have any other legal problem.

Jimmy Boyd

The Wacky Pundit