People v. Hoehl, No. 27369
| Docket Nº | No. 27369 |
| Citation | 193 Colo. 557, 568 P.2d 484 |
| Case Date | September 06, 1977 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 484
v.
James R. HOEHL, Defendant-Appellant.
[193 Colo. 558]
Page 485
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., James S. Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.Kelly, Haglund & Garnsey, Norman D. Haglund, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
LEE, Justice.
Defendant James R. Hoehl appeals his conviction for child abuse. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Defendant was charged in a two-count information in Denver District Court with child abuse, section 18-6-401(1)(a), C.R.S.1973, and first-degree assault, section 18-3-202 C.R.S.1973. He was acquitted of the assault charge.
Regarding the child abuse charge, the information alleged that:
"(b)etween the dates of February 20, 1975 and February 25, 1975, JAMES R. HOEHL, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously knowingly, intentionally and without justifiable excuse, cause and permit a child, JODY SIEMILLER, to be placed in a situation that could endanger the child's life and health, and did further torture and cruelly punish the aforesaid JODY SIEMILLER, the foregoing resulting in serious bodily injury * * *."
The district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss this count or for a bill of particulars.
[193 Colo. 559] At trial, the People introduced two voluntary statements by defendant concerning the incident in question. These statements, reaffirmed by defendant's later testimony, related that defendant was babysitting Jody Siemiller, the four-year-old daughter of a friend, on February 23, 1975, as he had done on prior occasions. After taking Jody to a late movie, defendant drove around town for two or two and one-half hours. The night was cold, a window was open, the heater in defendant's car was not working, and Jody wore only a light jacket.
As a result, when they arrived at defendant's house, Jody was tired and complained that her hands were cold. Defendant told her to place her hands on a steam radiator and assisted her in doing so. Defendant left the room. When he returned, Jody said her hands were still cold. Defendant suggested that she turn them over, placing them palms down on the radiator. He again left the room. On his return, Jody complained that her hands hurt. Defendant discovered large blisters on both palms. She did not cry until defendant peeled a portion of the skin from her right hand. He washed her hands in cold water, applied burn ointment, and put her to bed. The next morning he took her home.
The bulk of the People's evidence consisted of expert testimony by three doctors that Jody's injuries could not have occurred as defendant claimed. They testified that despite the cold and Jody's fatigue, she would have felt pain from such intense heat and removed her hands from the radiator. Jody's injuries were described as second- and third-degree burns, one requiring a skin graft.
Defendant denied holding Jody's hands on the radiator. Two expert witnesses for the defense testified that the burns could have been self-inflicted, without Jody's feeling pain.
At the close of the evidence, the court, on the People's motion, struck from the information the language "and did further torture and cruelly punish the aforesaid JODY SIEMILLER." The court refused to instruct the jury on the meaning of several phrases in the child abuse statute, remarking:
"Well, I find that there is no help in the statute so far as any definitions or guidelines * * *. We can reach definitions, but it being a new statute, there
Page 486
are no applicable guidelines or standards and accordingly, we will have to leave it up to the jury to see if they can arrive at their own opinion as to what constitutes a violation of this section."The jury returned its verdict, finding defendant guilty of child abuse.
Defendant urges reversal of this conviction on two grounds: (1) the child abuse statute, section 18-6-401(1)(a), C.R.S.1973, is impermissibly vague, and (2) the information was defective for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dunaway, No. 02SC675.
...failure to supervise a child in a potentially harmful situation may rise to the level of child abuse. See People v. Hoehl, 88 P.3d 635 193 Colo. 557, 560, 568 P.2d 484, 486 (1977) (Defendant who told child to warm her hands on a radiator without supervision, resulting in third degree burns ......
-
People v. Taggart, No. 80SA32
...that subsection unconstitutionally vague. This aspect of the vagueness argument flies in the face of our holding in People v. Hoehl, 193 Colo. 557, 560, 568 P.2d 484, 486 (1977), where we construed the word "may" to mean "a reasonable probability that the child's life or health will be enda......
-
Bowers v. State, No. 150
...mistreats and maltreats"); State v. Killory, 73 Wis.2d 400, 243 N.W.2d 475 (1976) ("cruel maltreatment"); And see People v. Hoehl, Colo., 568 P.2d 484 (1977). What these cases demonstrate is that a standard of absolute mathematical precision, however, desirable in any statute whether penal ......
-
People v. Pratt, No. 86SA401
...however, was not at issue in Young and, thus, Young also is not controlling. The defendant relies upon our decision in People v. Hoehl, 193 Colo. 557, 568 P.2d 484 (1977). In Hoehl we interpreted the child abuse statute, section 18-6-401(1)(a), 8 C.R.S. (1973), which provided in pertinent p......
-
People v. Dunaway, No. 02SC675.
...failure to supervise a child in a potentially harmful situation may rise to the level of child abuse. See People v. Hoehl, 88 P.3d 635 193 Colo. 557, 560, 568 P.2d 484, 486 (1977) (Defendant who told child to warm her hands on a radiator without supervision, resulting in third degree burns ......
-
People v. Taggart, No. 80SA32
...that subsection unconstitutionally vague. This aspect of the vagueness argument flies in the face of our holding in People v. Hoehl, 193 Colo. 557, 560, 568 P.2d 484, 486 (1977), where we construed the word "may" to mean "a reasonable probability that the child's life or health will be enda......
-
Bowers v. State, No. 150
...mistreats and maltreats"); State v. Killory, 73 Wis.2d 400, 243 N.W.2d 475 (1976) ("cruel maltreatment"); And see People v. Hoehl, Colo., 568 P.2d 484 (1977). What these cases demonstrate is that a standard of absolute mathematical precision, however, desirable in any statute whether penal ......
-
People v. Pratt, No. 86SA401
...however, was not at issue in Young and, thus, Young also is not controlling. The defendant relies upon our decision in People v. Hoehl, 193 Colo. 557, 568 P.2d 484 (1977). In Hoehl we interpreted the child abuse statute, section 18-6-401(1)(a), 8 C.R.S. (1973), which provided in pertinent p......