State v. Baker
| Decision Date | 20 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 108263,ED 108263 |
| Citation | 618 S.W.3d 551 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Roberta Jean BAKER, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Garrick F. D. Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.
James C. Egan, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Defendant/Appellant.
Carl D. Kinsky, National Advocates for Women, 720 Market Street, Ste. Genevieve, MO 63670, For Amicus Curiae.
Kayla M. DeLoach, ACLU, 5536 Pershing Avenue, Apt. 513, St. Louis, MO 63112, For Amicus Curiae.
Roberta Jean Baker (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered after a bench trial convicting her of the class B felony of abuse or neglect of a child. We reverse.
In September or October of 2017, Appellant learned she was pregnant with her fourth child. At that time, Appellant had custody of her youngest daughter and her mother was the legal guardian of her two oldest daughters. During the pregnancy, a parole warrant was issued for Appellant's arrest due to her failure to report to probation and parole. Appellant also admitted to using methamphetamine both before and during the pregnancy.
Appellant never sought prenatal care. Instead, Appellant took prenatal vitamins
, conducted research on pregnancies, and relied on her past experiences. Appellant's water started leaking on either February 19 or 20, 2018. At that time, Appellant contacted her friend Amy Harris (Amy) on Facebook. Amy said she had experience delivering babies as a medical assistant and offered to help her with the homebirth. Appellant accepted and Amy came over with supplies. Also present in the house during labor were Josh Felty (Josh), the supposed father; William Bertelsmeyer (William), Appellant's uncle; Dawn Smith (Dawn), William's girlfriend; and Steve Watkins, but only Appellant and Amy were in Appellant's bedroom.
Appellant had her fourth child, Elijah Baker (E.B.) at approximately 3:30 a.m. on February 22, 2018. E.B. was born extremely premature, weighing less than 3 pounds. However, upon handing him to Appellant, Amy assured her that his lungs were okay. Appellant also thought he looked great. At that point, Appellant took to Facebook, messaging friends with pictures of her baby. Josh, William, and Dawn went to Walmart to buy baby supplies.
Over the next day, Appellant cared for and fed E.B. Appellant did not notice any issues with him and thought he appeared small but healthy. However, at roughly 3:30 a.m. on February 23, 2018, Appellant weighed him and discovered he weighed just two pounds and eleven ounces. At 3:41 a.m., Appellant texted Dawn and stated she was "scared af" because of the baby's weight.
Thereafter, Appellant fell asleep with E.B. Around 5:30 a.m., Appellant woke up to a sound and saw the baby looked "a little discolored" and "was struggling" to breathe. Appellant panicked and brought him to Dawn and William to see what they thought. They contacted Appellant's mother who called 911 and performed CPR as the baby's condition deteriorated.
Officer Andrew Rieger was the first to respond and he immediately took over CPR. An ambulance arrived a minute later and took E.B. to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 6:24 a.m. on February 23, 2018. As the baby was taken away in the ambulance, Appellant was placed under arrest.
Appellant was interviewed three times by Detective Matthew Wampler (Det. Wampler) with the St. Francois County sheriff's office. In her first interview, Appellant lied to Det. Wampler, claiming the birth occurred on February 23, 2018, with no one else present. Appellant then sought a second interview to correct her statements. Appellant also consented to searches of her phone and Facebook account during the interviews.
Appellant claimed she did not seek medical attention because she thought E.B. was healthy and she did not want to lose custody due to her drug use and outstanding warrant. Appellant also testified that she would have gone to a doctor immediately if anything was wrong.
Appellant was charged by a second substitute information with the class A felony of neglect of a child. Due to her criminal record, Appellant was charged as a prior and persistent offender. The information alleged Appellant caused E.B.:
to suffer physical injury as a result of neglect by not seeking medical care for premature child and as a result [E.B.] (D.O.B. 2/22/2018) died of injuries sustained from this conduct.
Before trial, Appellant submitted a memorandum waiving her right to a jury trial and thereafter a bench trial occurred. At trial, the court heard testimony from Vicky Morse, Appellant's mother; Paul Morse, Appellant's stepfather; Officer Andrew Rieger; Detective Clyde Kenneth Wakefield; Dr. Russell Deidiker (Dr. Deidiker), a forensic pathologist; Det. Wampler; and Appellant. Dr. Deidiker was the only expert witness presented during trial.
Dr. Deidiker performed the autopsy of E.B. Dr. Deidiker testified he found material in the baby's stomach, which indicated live birth. Dr. Deidiker also testified he measured E.B. and determined gestation was approximately 28 to 30 weeks and E.B. was at least 10 weeks premature. Dr. Deidiker considered this state of prematurity to be extreme. Dr. Deidiker stated the complications associated with extreme prematurity Dr. Deidiker also testified 24 to 28 weeks "has kind of been a major breaking point, where prior to that survival was much less likely, whereas after that, survival becomes more – where there's a greater chance of survival."
Dr. Deidiker ordered a toxicology report, which found methamphetamine in the baby's blood. Although Dr. Deidiker did not know what methamphetamine levels were toxic in infants, he testified the methamphetamine "may have caused the prematurity." Nonetheless, Dr. Deidiker restated "the cause of death was complications of prematurity."
During both direct and cross-examination, Dr. Deidiker was repeatedly questioned about E.B.’s chances of survival if he were born in a hospital or had medical care summoned immediately upon his birth. Dr. Deidiker did not give a precise answer. Instead, he stated that in the absence of medical attention, the baby had "zero chance of survival." Dr. Deidiker then admitted he could not estimate how enhanced E.B.’s survival odds would have been had he been born in a hospital, explaining "each case is individual." Dr. Deidiker only went so far as to say it would have been "less likely" the baby would have died if born in a hospital.
On May 16, 2019, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the lesser offense of class B felony of abuse or neglect of a child. At the sentencing hearing on July 19, 2019, Appellant asked the court to reconsider its decision in light of new caselaw, citing State v. Usnick, 585 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). However, the trial court held Usnick only further justified its decision to find Appellant guilty of the lesser version of the crime, which does not require death to result, because it could not say with confidence that Appellant's actions caused the baby's death. The court stated The court explained that it found Appellant guilty of the lesser crime because there was a "physical injury that [created] a substantial risk of death." The court held it "was convinced beyond any doubt that the act of not getting any medical treatment immediately upon the birth of this child certainly caused a substantial risk of death, and that was based on the testimony of Dr. Deidiker, and again, given other evidence that I found."
Appellant was sentenced to 20 years in prison. This appeal follows.
Appellant makes two claims of error on this appeal. Point I claims the trial court erred in finding Appellant guilty because the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant's neglect caused E.B.’s injuries and substantial risk of death. Point II claims the trial court plainly erred by proceeding without a jury because Appellant did not clearly waive her right to a trial by jury.
Appellant's sufficiency of evidence claim is automatically preserved for appellate review. State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Mo. banc 2015) ("[Appellant's] claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction is preserved on appeal even if not raised or not timely raised in the trial court."). Additionally, "[t]he standard of review in a court-tried case is the same as in a jury-tried case." State v. McKinney, 253 S.W.3d 110, 113 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008).
In determining whether evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, this Court's role is "limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. banc 2002). We accept as true all evidence and reasonable inferences which support the conviction, and ignore all contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Ess, 453 S.W.3d 196, 206 (Mo. banc 2015). However, this Court "may not supply missing evidence, or give the [State] the benefit of unreasonable, speculative or forced inferences." State v. Clark, 490 S.W.3d 704, 707 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Mo. banc 2001) ).
Appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of...
To continue reading
Request your trial