Prosecution OKd in Prayer Healing Case

The state Supreme Court, ruling in an unusual test of religious freedom, held unanimously Thursday that a Christian Scientist parent may be prosecuted for manslaughter in the death of a sick child who was treated by prayer rather than medical care.

The court rejected claims that the prosecution violated the constitutional rights of a Sacramento woman whose 4-year-old daughter died of acute meningitis after her mother obtained only spiritual treatment by a Christian Science nurse.

‘Compelling Interest’

The justices held that any intrusion into the ability of parents to choose treatment on the basis of religious beliefs in such circumstances was outweighed by the state’s “compelling interest” in protecting seriously ill children.

“Parents have no right to free exercise of religion at the price of a child’s life, regardless of the prohibitive or compulsive nature of the governmental infringement,” Justice Stanley Mosk wrote for the court.

The justices acknowledged that a 1976 child-neglect law protects parents from misdemeanor charges for substituting prayer for medical treatment of a child. But that law does not bar prosecution under separate statutes for felony manslaughter and child endangerment where a child faces serious physical harm or death, they said.

The court also rejected the contention that because the woman acted in the sincere belief that prayer would heal her child, her conduct would not represent criminal negligence under the manslaughter law. The correct test was whether her conduct was objectively reasonable, and that question will be up to a jury, the court said.

The ruling came as a substantial setback to the Christian Science Church, whose attorneys had joined in the defense of Laurie G. Walker of Sacramento after she was charged with involuntary manslaughter and felony child endangerment in the death of her daughter, Shauntay, in 1984.

While such prosecutions are rare, church lawyers expressed concern over the constitutional implications such cases could have for the countless members of religious groups that recognize some form of prayer or faith healing. There are about 300 Christian Science churches in California alone and more than 300,000 church members nationwide, attorneys noted.

In the wake of Thursday’s ruling, Thomas A. Volk of Sacramento, an attorney for Walker, said the court will be asked to grant a rehearing. If such a request is denied, the case will probably be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.

“I think this ruling puts a heavy, heavy burden on parents who turn to spiritual healing for their children,” Volk said. “This is the first time a high court has said that a parent is guilty of criminal negligence when he does not use conventional medical treatment.”

A spokesman for the Christian Science Church in Boston declined comment on the ruling pending further study of the court’s opinion. But the official, Michael Born, observed that there are six criminal trials currently pending in the United States against church members--three of them in California. Thursday’s ruling, Born said, was apparently the first by a state supreme court upholding such prosecutions against Christian Science parents.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by a Pennsylvania couple, members of the fundamentalist Faith Tabernacle Congregation, who were convicted of manslaughter after they unsuccessfully tried to save their ailing son’s life through prayer rather than medical treatment.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Clifford K. Thompson Jr., who represented the state in the Walker case, declined comment, saying he wanted to avoid any public remarks about a case that still awaits trial.

Walker’s daughter had begun to suffer from fever and other flu-like symptoms in late February, 1984. As her condition appeared to worsen, the mother sent for an accredited Christian Science practitioner who came to pray for the child. No doctor was summoned, despite pleas by some relatives. The girl finally died 17 days after the onset of her symptoms.

Walker was charged with involuntary manslaughter and felony child endangerment for failing to seek medical treatment for her daughter, offenses that together could bring a maximum prison term of 10 years. Her lawyers challenged the validity of the prosecution, but both a Sacramento Superior Court and state Court of Appeal refused to prevent the case from going to trial.

The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the woman’s subsequent appeal in early 1986. Meanwhile, two other cases in Los Angeles and Sonoma counties involving similar prosecutions remained pending while the justices reviewed the Walker case.

In Thursday’s ruling, the court turned down Walker’s contentions that her prosecution was barred by both the Constitution and the 1976 child-neglect law.

Mosk, analyzing the legislative history of the 1976 statute, pointed out that the main purpose of the law was to provide support for their children. There had been no intention to create “an unqualified defense” to felony charges against parents who provide only prayer to a gravely ill child.

The court noted also that new legislation, set to go into effect next year, allows Juvenile Court judges to order medical treatment for a seriously ill child whose parents are providing spiritual treatment alone.

“The expression of legislative intent is clear: When a child’s health is seriously jeopardized, the right of a parent to rely on prayer must yield,” Mosk wrote.