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."