Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Law Back in Effect for Now

http://www.kvoa.com/story/38440384/court-reinstates-doctor-assisted-suicide-in-california

A state appeals court has reinstated — at least for now — California's law allowing terminally ill people to end their lives.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals in Riverside issued an immediate stay Friday putting the End of Life Option back into effect. The court also gave opponents of its decision until July 2 to file objections.

Judge Ottolia Rejects Motion to Vacate Order Invalidating Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Law

Judge Daniel Ottolia has rejected a motion to vacate his decision overturning the deceptively named, "End of Life Options Act." The act remains null and void. For more information, click here  

Heirs Risk Forfeited Inheritance & Murder Charge If They Kill Victims Under Void Act

By Margaret  Dore, Esq.

In California, a person commits murder in the first degree via "willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing."[1] California also has "slayer statutes," providing that murderers shall not inherit from their victims. As an example, California's Probate Code states:

(a) A person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent is not entitled to any of the following:

(1) Any property, interest, or benefit under a will of the decedent, or a trust created by or for the benefit of the decedent or in which the decedent has an interest ...  [2] 

Judgment Entered Declaring Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Law Unconstitutional & Prospectively Prohibiting Use

Alexandra Snyder, Esq.

Yesterday, Riverside County Judge Daniel A. Ottolia entered judgment declaring California's assisted suicide/euthanasia law void as unconstitutional. The judgment states:

The Court held the End of Life Option Act ("Act") was passed by a special session of the Legislature in violation of Article IV § 3(b) of the California Constitution because the Act is not encompassed by any "reasonable construction" of the Proclamation granting the special session the authority to legislate. The Court therefore held that the Act was void as unconstitutional.