Crown v. Charles Adkins (Makko Oko)

Crown v. Charles Adkins
Court	Supreme Court, Opposh, Makko Oko
Decided	August 7, 2025 (2025-08-07)
Case history
Appealed from	Appellate Court of Appeals of Makko Oko
Case opinions
The court understands the weight that religion may bear on the defendant, however, it does not excuse their conduct of which they were convicted. The church has solemnly declared under oath to our fair body that abortion is supported where it is necessary, and where it was necessary was supported by the law. Therefore, this court finds that the conviction of Charles Adkins was legal under the constitutional right to protection by the state, and was duly necessitated by defendants' actions causing such negligence. Lower courts ruling affirmed, case remanded.
Majority	Sparks, Aponte, Graham, Gerlach
Dissent	Sullivan, Reynolds

Crown v. Charles Adkins is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of Makko Oko on August 7th, 2025 on rather a medical professional could be charged with negligent homicide where the professional refused to perform an abortion for religious reasons.

Background

Dr. Charles Adkins was a gynecologist working at Makko Children's Hospital in 2025. Months after the ratification of the Sutton Abortion Act, Dr. Adkins had refused to provide an abortion to a minor citing their religious beliefs prevented them from doing so. Hospital administrators backed him, and the minor, who was never named, and is only known in this case as Citizen A, died after the fetus led to the minor developing preeclampsia, which went unnoticed by doctors at the hospital until they had a life-threatening emergency, in which case, there had already been severe and irreversible damage to their kidneys and lungs. After performing the abortion under the directive of administrators, Citizen A died the next day after being on a respirator in ICU.

After the medical report was filed and the bodies were sent to autopsy, Dr. Adkins was arrested the next week and charged with two counts of negligent homicide and one count of medical negligence. He was convicted of all charges and appealed immediately thereafter, having been heard by the Appellate Court of Appeals two months later. The appellate court ruled partially in favor of Dr. Adkins, overturning some of his convictions but keeping others, with the court saying at the time "These charges lack the proper evidentiary support to be sustained". His sentence ended up getting reduced 30% after the ruling, however, he appealed still to the Supreme Court, with them taking up his appeal soon thereafter.

Decision

The court ruled 4-2 in favor of the government, upholding the lower court's judgement. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Gerlach and established that the prosecution and subsequent conviction of Charles Adkins was necessary and required due to the constitutional right to protection by the state, established under Section 1, Article 1. According to the court, the state was working to "protect the interests of the parents of Citizen A and of Citizen A and their unborn fetus", all of which were citizens or were to be citizens of the state in reference to the unborn fetus. The decision was helped by members of the church which attested to the fact that the church does not prohibit abortions, especially not if it is medically necessary, and encourages them in those instances and for instances of wedlock.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Richard Sullivan was one of the dissenting justices, and his opinion was:

"I solemnly believe that if the court were to properly interpret the right to protection, they would have seen that under the guiss of national sovereignty, and of Article 40, and ruled in favor of the defendant. 'In the tapestry of life woven by god's hand, each thread is sacred from the moment it is spun. To cherish and protect this divine creation is to walk in the light of his love' Christianity states that what he did, was right, and by the court ruling against him, they have violated national sovereignty and they have violated our religion and its doctrine."

Justice Odell Reynolds was the other dissenting justice, with the most controversial dissenting opinion of his tenure. Justice Reynolds stipulated that the government failed to establish probable cause on how Citizen A's death was the fault of the defendant when evidence showed that when a medical emergency arose, he did what he was directed to do by administrators and called into question the culpability of Makko Children's Hospital, rather than the individual doctor, for employing somebody with such "religious tendencies":

"I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in the case of Crown v. Charles Adkins. While I acknowledge the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Citizen A, I believe that the conviction of Dr. Charles Adkins for negligent homicide oversteps the appropriate bounds of governmental authority and infringes upon individual religious freedoms. The majority's decision hinges on the constitutional right to protection by the state, as outlined in Section 1, Article 1 of our Constitution. However, this interpretation imposes an undue burden on individual rights and the autonomy of medical professionals. Dr. Adkins acted in accordance with his deeply held religious beliefs, which should be afforded protection under the same constitutional framework that the majority cites.

The evidence presented in this case does not sufficiently demonstrate that Dr. Adkins' actions directly caused the death of Citizen A. Instead, it highlights a broader systemic issue within Makko Children's Hospital, where a lack of timely intervention and comprehensive medical oversight contributed to the unfortunate outcome. The hospital's administrators supported Dr. Adkins' decision, yet failed to implement alternative measures or provide adequate monitoring of Citizen A's condition, which ultimately led to the undetected development of life-threatening preeclampsia. By focusing solely on Dr. Adkins' religious convictions, the majority opinion overlooks the hospital's duty to provide a standard of care that protects patient welfare, irrespective of individual beliefs. The hospital's failure to act decisively and ensure that all patients receive necessary medical attention, regardless of the personal convictions of its staff, represents a significant lapse in its institutional responsibilities.

The medical complications that arose were not solely attributable to the refusal to perform an abortion but were part of a broader medical context that included multiple factors and decisions by various healthcare providers. To hold Dr. Adkins solely accountable is to oversimplify a complex medical situation and unjustly penalize an individual for adhering to their religious beliefs.In conclusion, while the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of its citizens, this interest must be balanced against the fundamental rights of individuals to practice their religion and exercise their professional judgment. The conviction of Dr. Adkins, in this case, represents an overreach of state power and a failure to uphold the constitutional protections afforded to religious freedom and personal autonomy. Therefore, I dissent from the majority's ruling and would reverse the lower court's decision."

Effects

Crown v. Charles Adkins led to the establishment of the nation's first guaranteed right of justice through the first activist ruling on the Gerlach Court. As a side effect of this establishment, the Justice Necessity Test was established. This test aims to evaluate whether the circumstances of a case warrant the pursuit of justice through legal intervention. This test would help determine when the legal system should act to ensure fairness and justice for individuals, especially in cases where rights may be at risk. There are six components to it, the first one being assessment of rights, which evaluates whether the rights of the individual involved have been violated or are at risk of being violated. This includes examining constitutional rights and any relevant legal protections. The second component judges severity of the harm caused by the actions in question, including both physical harm and broader implications for societal justice. The third component is intent and circumstances, the fourth requires an analysis of public interest, fifth is proportionality and finally the sixth one is considering precedent.