People v. Jackson, Cr. 4339
| Decision Date | 25 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4339 |
| Citation | 95 Cal.Rptr. 919,18 Cal.App.3d 504 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bobby Leon JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
After a jury trial, defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of Penal Code, § 273a and § 273d (child beating).
The defendant's first contention is that the court committed prejudicial error in allowing the testimony of a doctor concerning the 'battered child syndrome.' An obvious answer to this contention is that no objection was made to this testimony. However, since it appears that under present procedures, appellate review is endless and if we dispose of the matter on that basis, we can realistically anticipate a collateral attack in which the defendant's appellate counsel is charged with inadequacy because of failure to charge trial counsel with inadequacy because the trial counsel failed to make the objection. Therefore, pragmatically, and since the problem has not before been presented on an appellate court level, we will discuss the contention.
Jo Anne Blanton lived with the defendant and had a thirteen month old child by him. One day she left the child with him while she went to work and when she returned in the evening, the child had burns and water blisters on his body. The defendant said something like 'before you see him * * * don't get shook,' and gave his explanation of what had happened. Since the child did not look too seriously injured to her, she put something on his burns and left for school, returning later in the evening. During the night the burns got worse and the next day the child was taken to see a doctor who examined the child but would not treat him for burns because the child had suffered a previous head injury. The child was then taken to a hospital. A pediatrician examined the child, found burns on the child's head and upper part of his back, a swollen forearm and distended abdomen and diagnosed an injury to the liver. He also saw a bruise suggestive of the shape of a thumb and one or two fingers on the child's body; he found that the child had suffered first and second degree burns over 23 per cent of his body. X-rays revealed two recent fractures in the right forearm and one recent fracture in the left forearm. There were scratches on his right buttock and left leg. Further x-ray revealed ten broken ribs, five on each side, and the child was 'near enough to death where it would not be any surprise if he expired at any time.' The child had been admitted to the hospital three months before when he was diagnosed as having a subdural hematoma, a liquefied blood clot on the brain. The doctor was familiar with the elements of 'battered child syndrome.' This syndrome means that a child has received repeated and/or serious injuries by non-accidental means; characteristically, these injuries are inflicted by someone who is ostensibly caring for the child. There are several elements that are the criteria for the 'battered child syndrome.' They are (1) the child is usually under three years of age; (2) there is evidence of bone injury at different times; (3) there are subdural hematomas with or without skull fractures; (4) there is a seriously injured child who does not have a history given that fits the injuries; (5) there is evidence of soft tissue injury; (6) there is evidence of neglect. The doctor found these indicia present in the baby's history in the instant case.
A finding, as in this case, of the 'battered child syndrome' is not an opinion by the doctor as to whether any particular person has done anything, but, as this doctor indicated, 'it would take thousands of children to have the severity and number and degree of injuries that this child had over the span of time that we had' by accidental means. In other words, the 'battered child syndrome' simply indicates that a child found with the type of injuries outlined above has not suffered those injuries by accidental means. This conclusion is based upon an extensive study of the subject by medical science. The additional finding that the injuries were probably occasioned by someone who is ostensibly caring for the child is simply a conclusion based upon logic and reason. Only someone regularly 'caring' for the child has the continuing opportunity to inflict these types of injuries; an isolated contact with a vicious stranger would not result in this pattern of successive injuries stretching through several months.
Evidence Code, § 801, provides the standards for the admission of expert testimony and it is clear that the doctor's testimony in this case comes well within that section. An expert medical witness may give his opinion as to the means used to inflict a particular injury, based on his deduction from the appearance of the injury itself. (Estate of Rowley, 257 Cal.App.2d 324, 340, 65 Cal.Rptr. 139.) A medical diagnosis based on probability--as is the case with the 'battered child syndrome' diagnosis--is admissible; the lack of scientific certainty does not deprive the medical opinion of its evidentiary value. (Travelers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 33 Cal.2d 685, 687, 203 P.2d 747; Estate of Rowley, Supra.)
Whether to admit such testimony is, of course, within the discretion of the trial court. However, the diagnosis of the 'battered child syndrome' has become an accepted medical diagnosis. (See Morris J. Paulson and Phillip R. Blake, 'The Abused, Battered, and Maltreated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Atkins
...injuries] has not suffered those injuries by accidental means.'" Id. at 570, 247 S.E.2d at 911 (quoting People v. Jackson, 18 Cal.App.3d 504, 507, 95 Cal.Rptr. 919, 921 (1971)). This Court approved the use of battered child evidence in a capital proceeding in State v. Elliott, 344 N.C. 242,......
-
State v. Dumlao
...e.g., United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d 527 (5th Cir.1981); Bell v. State, 435 So.2d 772 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); People v. Jackson, 18 Cal.App.3d 504, 95 Cal.Rptr. 919 (1971); Commonwealth v. Labbe, supra; State v. Goblirsch, 309 Minn. 401, 246 N.W.2d 12 (1976); State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 55......
-
State v. Alberico
...rape trauma syndrome represents a distinctly different concept than the battered child diagnosis described in [People v.] Jackson [, 18 Cal.App.3d 504, 95 Cal.Rptr. 919 (1971) ]. It does not consist of a relatively narrow set of criteria or symptoms whose presence demonstrates that the clie......
-
State v. Norlin
...syndrome" by a physician does not, of course, necessarily indicate any wrongdoing by a particular defendant. People v. Jackson, [18 Cal.App.3d 504, 95 Cal.Rptr. 919 (1971) ]. Evidence must still be produced to establish that it was the defendant who caused the injuries in question. The trie......
-
Table of Cases null
...People v. Jackson, 177 Cal. App. 3d 708, 222 Cal. Rptr. 470 (1st Dist. 1986)—Ch. 4-B, §3.5.1(1)(a)[3] People v. Jackson, 18 Cal. App. 3d 504, 95 Cal. Rptr. 919 (4th Dist. 1971)—Ch. 4-A, §7.1.3 People v. Jacobs, 43 Cal. 3d 472, 233 Cal. Rptr. 323, 729 P.2d 757 (1987)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(2)(a)[3]......
-
Disqualification of judges and judicial conduct
...of justice, the judge must alertly supervise the proceeding and curb over-zealous advocates when necessary. People v. Jackson (1971) 18 Cal. App. 3d 504, 509, 95 Cal. Rptr. 919. The court has the power to provide for the orderly conduct of the proceedings, to preserve and enforce order and ......
-
Table of cases
...1493, 267 Cal. Rptr. 841, §12:100 Jackson, People v. (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 700, 214 Cal. Rptr. 346, §3:80 Jackson, People v. (1971) 18 Cal. App. 3d 504, 95 Cal. Rptr. 919, §9:150 Jackson, People v. (1954) 124 Cal. App. 2d 787, 269 P.2d 17, §7:120 - Hu - B-29 Table of Cases Jacobs v. Super......
-
Jury instructions, not problematic expert testimony, in child sexual assault cases.
...jury's domain, even though by this diagnosis the physician draws an inference of nonaccidental injury." Id. See also People v. Jackson, 95 Cal. Rptr. 919, 921 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (allowing expert testimony to conclude that in his expert opinion, a child's injuries were caused by a pattern ......