United States v. Flute, No. 17-3727 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The government charged defendant with one count of involuntary manslaughter committed within Indian Country after her newborn baby died due to combined drug toxicity. The district court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the charged offense did not cover her or her conduct.
The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the baby falls within the class of victims protected by 18 U.S.C. 1112 regardless of whether he was or was not a human being when he sustained injuries in utero. In this case, although the plain language of section 1112 and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act plainly encompasses defendant and her conduct, the district court erroneously utilized a separate, unrelated, and uncharged statutory provision to exclude defendant's conduct from section 1112. The court remanded with directions to reinstate the indictment and noted that the district court may take up an as-applied due process challenge it did not reach.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. After the death of defendant's newborn baby due to combined drug toxicity, the government charged her with one count of involuntary manslaughter committed in Indian Country in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1112 and 1153. The district court dismissed the indictment on the ground the charged offense did not cover her or her conduct because prosecution was barred by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1841 which bars prosecution of any woman with respect to her unborn child. Held: defendant's "born alive" child falls within the class of victims protected by the federal involuntary manslaughter statute, regardless of whether he was or was not a human being when he sustained injuries in utero; the plain language of Section 1112 and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act clearly encompasses defendant and her conduct, and the district court erroneously relied on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1841 - to exclude defendant's conduct from the reach of Section 1112; dismissal reversed and the matter remanded with directions to reinstate the indictment; on remand the district court may take up an as-applied due process challenge it did not reach in light of its ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss. Judge Colloton, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.