Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sufficiency Evidence Child Neglect Endangerment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellate court hears arguments over sufficiency of evidence on child endangerment and neglect counts
Summary
Appellate counsel argued the evidence was insufficient as to aggravated child endangerment and neglect counts, saying some injuries would not have been apparent to a competent caretaker; the State urged the record provided a rational basis for convictions on all counts.
Argument also addressed whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions on counts charging aggravated child endangerment and aggravated child neglect.
Appellate Division attorney for Rebecca Davis told the panel that, while the defense had conceded sufficiency as to count 1 for the purposes of argument, the proof "is especially insufficient as to counts 3 and 4 because the proof was undisputed at trial that those injuries were not apparent, that the rib injuries and the leg injuries would not be noticeable by a competent caretaker." The attorney asked the court to "set aside the convictions in counts 2 through 4 and remand."
Ronald Coleman, for the State of Tennessee, argued the evidence was sufficient on all counts and described how the jury could reasonably infer different actors or failures by the defendant across the charged counts. "It overwhelmingly established the defendant's guilt of all 4 counts," Coleman said, and urged the court to affirm the judgments. Coleman characterized the charged counts as addressing separate harms: acute injuries for the aggravated child abuse count and alleged failures to seek treatment or protect the child for the neglect and endangerment counts.
Defense counsel relied on a precedent the attorney cited as State v. Durrantes to argue that where all of the serious bodily injuries were caused by abuse, the State must show an additional causal link attributing further serious bodily injury to neglect. The State countered that proof of a deleterious effect from failure to seek or provide treatment sufficed for aggravated child neglect, pointing to testimony that broken bones did not begin to mend until treated by medical professionals.
The panel queried the parties about how jurors should distinguish acute inflicted injuries from alleged harm caused or worsened by a failure to seek care. No decision was announced at argument; the parties asked the court either to set aside the convictions for counts 2–4 and remand or to affirm the judgments as supported by the record.
