STATE V. MANN 39 P.3d 124 (2002) CASE BRIEF

STATE V. MANN

39 P.3d 124 (2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Mann (D) was convicted for intentional child abuse resulting in death. The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed D's conviction. D appealed.

FACTS: The victim was the six-year-old son of D and Rita Yancher. Yancher had primary custody and the boy spent every other weekend with D. The boy was present at D's house and D and Yancher argued during a telephone conversation regarding the boy staying with him through Saturday as well as late child support payments. At 1 am D's girlfriend, St. Jeor, awoke and saw D going to the boy's room to take him to the bathroom. She heard a noise from the boy, followed by a loud crash and a scream. She saw the boy having a seizure, on the floor with D cushioning his head. She called 911 and reported that boy was injured. She returned and saw the boy on his back with a screwdriver protruding from his chest. The boy was trying to move and D was cupping the screwdriver. St. Jeor, a nurse, attempted to help the boy but D punched her in the eye, grabbed her by her hair and by the back of the neck and 'slammed' her through the door into the opposite wall. She again called 911. Paramedics arrived and saw St Jeor exit the house; she was bleeding from her face and had a swollen eye. D refused to let the paramedics treat boy, and told him to leave the house. Sheriffs arrived and the boy was taken to the hospital. Medical personnel were unable to revive the child. The cause of death was the stab wound in his chest. There were two wounds in his chest but only one entry wound, indicating that the screwdriver was withdrawn several inches but not fully removed before it was thrust into his chest a second time. There was one stab wound with two trajectories. The pathologist testified that the screwdriver could not simply move over into the left chest because the vertebral column protrudes into the cavity; thus, the screwdriver had to be withdrawn until it was above the range of the column and then reintroduced. He also testified that cardiopulmonary resuscitation compressions to the chest, as well as other medical interventions performed on the victim, could not have caused the second wound path. There were no other injuries on the front of the victim's head, face, hands, or elbows. D was charged with murder and also charged with child abuse for a head injury the boy suffered in 1994. D claimed the boy tripped on a rug, and the screwdriver got stuck in his chest. D claimed he grabbed the screw-driver to prevent the boy from pulling it out in order to minimize the injuries. D claimed that he pushed St. Jeor but did not remember hurting her. At trial, D called an expert, Dr. Alan Watts, a physicist. He testified that the occurrence of an impalement such as that described by D has 'a relatively small overall probability.' It would be a 'freakish accident.' The State did not present rebuttal testimony. On cross examination, Dr. Watts conceded that he was unable to explain from his calculations how the second wound path occurred, stating that he had 'no way of calculating how the second path could have been caused on the basis of physics.' He said that the probability would be 'finite, ' but 'never zero.' D was convicted of child abuse resulting in death and second degree murder arising from the death of the boy. D was also convicted of aggravated assault of a household member, St. Jeor. The jury deadlocked on the child abuse charge stemming from the victim's 1994 head injury. D filed a motion for a new trial claiming the verdict was tainted by juror misconduct. Juror 7 presented probability calculations to the other members of the jury regarding the chances of a child and a screwdriver falling in such a manner as to result in impalement. The trial court conducted in camera interviews on the record with members of the jury to determine if an evidentiary hearing was necessary. It was calculated that it was a one in a 20 million chance. The trial court then denied D's motion. D failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that extraneous information had reached the jury.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner