Main Content
People v. Eulo
As you read Eulo, consider the following questions:
1. What is the issue in Eulo? What statutory language is the Court of Appeals interpreting?
2. How was “death” defined at common law for the purposes of homicide? How does the Court of Appeals define “death” in N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25?
3. Does the court’s holding in Eulo change the meaning of the word “death” in the statute? If so, is that appropriate?
4. After Keeler was decided, the California legislature amended its homcide statutes, so that sec. 187 now provides: "(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." After Eulo, the New York legislature did not need to amend the NYPL. Which do you think is a better approach--let the wrongdoer go unpunished and leave it to the legislature to fix the loophole in the law (Keeler) or empower judges to adapt statutory interpretation to fit changed circumstances (Eulo)?
5. Do you agree with the result in Keeler? Do you agree with the result in Eulo? Can you reconcile the two opinions? What factors other than statutory interpretation principles do you think may have influenced the courts?
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.