Daycare worker accused of harming 1-year-old pleads not guilty as jury views video and photos

A defendant charged with harming a 1-year-old child pleaded not guilty in Montgomery County Circuit Court as the jury heard photos and watched surveillance video showing the child being handled roughly in a daycare classroom.

Prosecutors told the jury the case centers on a “betrayal of trust” by Sarah Jo Fuson, a daycare worker at Tyler Town Learning Center, and previewed testimony and exhibits including the child’s mother, daycare surveillance footage and medical records. "This case is about a betrayal," Mr. Holder, the prosecutor, told jurors during opening statements.

The indictment (read in court) charges Fuson with aggravated child abuse in Count 1 and child abuse in Count 2 under Tennessee law; the defendant entered a plea of not guilty before the jury. The judge instructed jurors on the state’s burden to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, on the limited role of opening statements and closing arguments, and on rules prohibiting outside research or media about the case.

What the state presented

On direct examination, Macy Hyde, Olivia Hyde’s mother, said she dropped her daughter at the daycare on Jan. 9, 2023 — Olivia’s first full day in the 1-year-old classroom — and discovered bruising on Olivia’s arms that evening. “I noticed bruising on the backs and sides of her arms,” Hyde testified. She identified photographs introduced into evidence that show patterned bruising consistent with the knit of the child’s shirt; those photos were admitted as State’s Exhibit 1 (a–f).

Daycare director Sabrina Carter testified that after Hyde showed her the photos she reviewed the center’s surveillance footage. Carter said the video showed two concerning episodes: rough handling while Olivia sat at a table and repeated forceful placements of Olivia onto a nap cot. Carter testified she removed Fuson from the 1-year-old room after viewing the footage and later terminated Fuson’s employment; she also said she reported the incident to the Department of Children’s Services and cooperated with law enforcement inquiries.

The defense argument previewed

Defense counsel told jurors the footage may look rough but disputed that Fuson intended to injure the child. The defense also contested the state’s contention that Olivia suffered a skull fracture. In court, defense counsel summarized radiology evidence as follows: “the radiologist’s impression was that this linear lucency was suspicious for fracture,” and the defense previewed an expert who will say the CT finding is an accessory suture (a Wormian bone) rather than a fracture.

Procedural and evidentiary notes

The judge instructed jurors that attorney statements and demonstrative previews are not evidence and reminded them they must base their verdict only on admitted evidence and the court’s instructions on law. The court admitted photographs of bruising and heard the prosecution seek admission and publication of surveillance footage for the jury (State’s Exhibit 3). During playback jurors submitted a routine written question asking the age range of the toddler room; the director answered that the toddler room serves children 12 to 24 months.

What was not decided

No expert medical testimony resolving the question of whether Olivia sustained a skull fracture was presented to the jury in the testimony excerpted here; the defense and prosecution both previewed experts the jury will hear in a later session. The judge repeatedly reminded jurors not to draw conclusions from objections or bench conferences and emphasized the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof.

Next steps

Court recessed for a technical pause during playback of electronic evidence and adjourned for the day. The judge instructed jurors not to research or discuss the case and set the next session for the morning, when both the state’s and defense’s expert witnesses are expected to testify.