HIV-positive man fights charge that saliva was deadly

ALBANY, New York Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:53pm EDT

Related Topics

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) - A gay-rights group is urging New York state's high court to overturn the conviction of an HIV-positive man whose saliva was found to be a "dangerous instrument" in a biting case.

David Plunkett was sentenced in 2007 to 10 years in prison for aggravated assault, a felony that requires the use of a "dangerous instrument."

Plunkett argued unsuccessfully the charge could not be sustained because HIV cannot be transmitted through saliva. The Court of Appeals, New York's top court, will hear Plunkett's case on Thursday.

Lambda Legal, a national group that advocates for gays and lesbians and people with HIV, argued in a court brief filed this week that upholding Plunkett's conviction would further stigmatize people living with HIV and AIDS.

"Clearly, the trial court here erroneously believed that HIV could be transmitted by saliva," the Lambda Legal brief reads.

In 2006, the staff at a medical clinic in Ilion, about 70 miles east of Syracuse, called police to complain that Plunkett was causing a disturbance. Police said he punched and bit one of the responding officers, according to court documents.

Herkimer County Court Judge Patrick Kirk in 2007 denied Plunkett's motion to dismiss the aggravated assault charge, ruling that while Plunkett's teeth could not be considered a dangerous instrument, his saliva could.

Plunkett pleaded guilty and was given a 10-year prison sentence. In 2010, an appeals court found that by pleading guilty, Plunkett had forfeited his right to challenge any trial court error.

Plunkett and Lambda Legal argue that under New York law, only substances that are "readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury" can be considered dangerous instruments.

A number of studies have found saliva does not contain sufficient concentrations of HIV to transmit the virus to other people. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "contact with saliva alone has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV."

Plunkett's attorney, Audrey Baron Dunning, argued in an appellate brief that upholding Plunkett's conviction could "open the door for enhanced prosecution of persons with many forms of illness, contagious disease or condition."

The Herkimer County District Attorney's office did not return a call seeking comment.

(Editing by Todd Eastham)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (5)
911014ever wrote:
if the man knew he had aids and bit someone, he used a “dangerous instrument”. the same if someone shot a man with a gun he knew he had.

Apr 25, 2012 5:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
33336666 wrote:
not true…you’re missing the entire point of the appeal. The appeal claims that precisely because saliva has not been shown to transmit HIV, it therefore can’t be a “dangerous instrument”. It doesn’t even matter if he had HIV and thought it could.

Apr 26, 2012 6:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
626law116 wrote:
This is interesting because the Court of Appeals has recently permitted the appeal of a guilty plea of a crime (People v. Moyett, 2006), although they may reconsider that issue more specific to these facts. But that may be enough to reverse and remand back to the appellate level for consideration of the HIV/saliva issue.

The Court of Appeals historically has preferred not to rule on the factual question of whether HIV can be transmitted by saliva, at least in civil cases. To that end, a number of civil suits outside of NY have found transmission of HIV through bites & saliva to be too remote and generally. NY courts have been unwilling to permit civil claims concerning HIV transmission absent actual transmission or “actual exposure,” which requires a scientifically plausible method of transmission (e.g. needle prick). The few jurisdictions that have considered this particular issue have found that exposure to saliva is not “actual exposure” because the chance of transmission is so minimal (

Apr 27, 2012 11:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.