Leath v. State, Z--358
| Decision Date | 15 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. Z--358,Z--358 |
| Citation | 333 So.2d 122 |
| Parties | Ronald Thomas LEATH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant appeals the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State's case and also urges reversal because of insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of guilt of child torture.
The defendant-appellant, Ronald Thomas Leath, was Pauline Thomas' boyfriend. Pauline had two children. Ricky Clark, her oldest, was a 6 year old boy. Felecia Michelle, her daughter, was 3.
On the day of March 19, 1975, Pauline left her home in an apartment complex in Jacksonville at 1:00 P.M. or thereabouts to keep an appointment with a doctor at 2:30 that afternoon. She left Ronald Thomas Leath and Michelle at her home. Ricky, 6, was at school. The mother, Pauline, returned about 7:00 P.M. Leath, Ricky and Michelle were there when she returned. Her brother and three other men were there also.
According to her testimony, Leath 'told her what happened'. She looked at her daughter and observed that she was 'kind of reddish, like when you usually burn your hands' on her legs and bottom. She went to the store, got some salve and rubbed it in. She testified Michelle didn't seem to be in pain nor in extreme discomfort. She fed her and put her to bed. Pauline got up about 9:00 A.M. and observed blisters the size of a dime around the child's legs, backside and vagina. She burst them and applied more salve.
The mother didn't seek medical attention for the child until 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. of the next day, March 20, when some friends, Mrs. Hall and her mother, Mrs. Martin, came on a visit to look at Pauline's new furniture. Even though Mrs. Hall had telephoned ahead of their visit, Pauline met them outside her apartment door and, to Mrs. Martin, seemed to be leaving. Mrs. Hall and Mrs. Martin went in, however, and Pauline came back in with them. Mrs. Martin, the older woman, immediately noticed blisters on Michelle's feet, and after seeing the baby, forgot all about inspecting the furniture. She immediately asked had the baby been to a doctor, learned that she hadn't, and immediately suggested that the baby needed medical attention. She offered her car as a means of taking the baby to the hospital and Pauline agreed that the baby be taken.
Pictures were taken of the baby in the emergency room. Twenty one of them were introduced into evidence by the State. We have reviewed them. They depict a badly burned child. Doctor Kenneth Corey examined the child at the time of her admission on March 20, 1975. He found first and second degree burns, the worst being in the genital area, extending back to but not involving the anal area, the inner thigh close to the hip, as well as the lower portion of the ankles and the feet. The feet were burned more severely on the tops than the bottoms; the injury was consistent with water burns and their location consistent with the child sitting in a bathtub of very hot water. The burn which extended along the vulva was a little too high to be consistent with merely sitting in water in his opinion.
Doctor Corey testified injuries of the type the child had would be obviously severe injuries to an average lay person. He also said they would be the cause of moderate to severe discomfort and described severe discomfort as being excruciating pain to the point that the person with such injuries could not perform any other function such as sleeping or eating.
Doctor Ernest Kimble examined the child on April 1, 1975, ten days after her hospital admission. He agreed with Doctor Corey that burns of this nature would be extremely painful. He stated that an injury of this type should be obvious to a person who is not medically trained. He also expressed his opinion that the burns were caused by water. The doctors agreed that they could not envision a child getting such burns voluntarily.
The State also introduced the testimony of 6 year old Ricky Clark. With the consent of defendant's counsel, he was not sworn. The record reveals his testimony to be contradictory and difficult to weigh. However, Investigator Pruitt of the Duval Sheriff's Department was permitted to testify as to a statement Ricky Clark made to him on the night of March 20, 1975.
The trial court had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State, 79-458
...to the State. Weldon v. State, 287 So.2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Spinkellink v. State, 313 So.2d 666 (Fla.1975); Leath v. State, 333 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In that posture, the facts in the instant case reveal the On Sunday evening, July 3, 1977, the deceased and his girl friend wen......
-
Peacock v. Melvin
...and would have reached a different conclusion had it been in the shoes of the trial court." Herzog, 346 So.2d at 58; Leath v. State, 333 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In the instant case, we find the trial judge's findings are supported by competent evidence, and we MINER, WEBSTER and BENT......