and expand the “bom alive” rule to cover the present situation—a pregnant woman’s ingestion of an illegal controlled substance that results in harm to the subsequently born child. In so ruling, we note that “[t]he legislature has the primary right to define crimes and their punishments subject, only to certain constitutional limitations.” Atkinson, Syllabus Point 1. Finally, we note that the overwhelming majority of the jurisdictions confronted with the prosecution of a mother for prenatal conduct causing harm to the subsequently bom child, refuse to permit su t be held criminally liable under a reckless endangerment statute for the effect that prenatal ingestion of a controlled substance may have on her child, pre- or post-birth); State v. Aiwohi, 109 Hawai’i 115, 123 P.3d 1210 (2005) (<HOLDING>); State v. Deborah J.Z., supra (holding that
holding that a woman possessed immunity from criminal prosecution for causing injury or death to her fetus holding that the definition of person in the hawaii manslaughter statute did not include a fetus and thus did not apply when a woman caused the death of her fetus by smoking crystal methamphetamine holding that fetus was not a human being for purposes of attempted firstdegree intentional homicide and firstdegree reckless injury statutes holding for purposes of establishing the offense of reckless manslaughter against a pregnant woman a fetus is not a person holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute