## Facts

- Franklin Pierce publicly practiced as a physician and was called to treat Mary A. Bemis, a sick woman.
- With Bemis’s consent, Pierce kept her in flannels saturated with kerosene for about three days.
- The indictment alleged Pierce applied roughly two gallons of kerosene over several days, causing burning and injury.
- Bemis became seriously ill, languished for several days, and died; the prosecution attributed death to the kerosene applications.
- Evidence indicated Pierce had used kerosene similarly in other cases, including at least one where it blistered and burned flesh.
- Pierce asserted he acted in good faith to cure Bemis and did not appreciate the treatment’s danger.

## Issues

1. For involuntary manslaughter based on reckless treatment, must the Commonwealth prove the defendant’s actual awareness of a serious risk to life, or is an objective “reasonable person” standard sufficient?
2. Does a good-faith intent to cure, or ignorance of a substance’s dangerous character, excuse or negate manslaughter liability when death results?

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court overruled Pierce’s exceptions and affirmed the manslaughter conviction.
- The court upheld jury instructions applying an objective standard: whether the conduct was “morally reckless” by the measure of a reasonably prudent person under circumstances known to the defendant.
- The court rejected requested instructions that would have required proof Pierce subjectively knew he was taking a life-threatening risk.
- The court held that good-faith curative intent and claimed ignorance of danger did not bar conviction if the conduct was objectively reckless.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary manslaughter may be proved by conduct that is grossly negligent or “morally reckless,” measured by an external standard of reasonable prudence under the circumstances known to the actor.
- The Commonwealth need not show the defendant in fact appreciated the precise risk; it is enough that the conduct created an unreasonable, grave risk under the objective standard.
- A sincere intent to benefit or cure the victim is relevant but not a complete defense when the method used is objectively reckless.
- Claimed ignorance of a substance’s dangerous properties does not excuse reckless use when ordinary experience would inform a reasonable person of the risk.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a manslaughter conviction for death caused by kerosene-soaked treatments, holding that criminal recklessness is judged objectively and is not defeated by good intentions or asserted ignorance when the conduct grossly departs from reasonable care and causes death.


Commonwealth v. Pierce, 138 Mass. 165 (Mass. 1884)