State v. Richter
| Decision Date | 22 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | WD 78464 |
| Citation | 504 S.W.3d 205 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Shelley A. RICHTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Connie Sullivan, Columbia, MO, for Appellant
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO Counsel for Respondent
Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, Presiding, Karen King Mitchell, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge
Appellant Shelley Richter ("Richter") appeals her conviction of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, section 568.045.1 Following a jury trial, she was convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment by the Circuit Court of Cole County. On appeal, Richter alleges that the circuit court erred in denying Richter's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of State's evidence because there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. Further, she claims that the court erred in submitting "disjunctive acts" in the verdict director, giving the jury a "roving commission." We affirm Richter's conviction.
The victim, L.S., was born in January, 2010, a month premature. However, he was thriving and, at his six-month wellness visit, he met all expected milestones. Other than a hospitalization in March 2010 for a respiratory virus and other common childhood illnesses, he was a healthy baby. There was no evidence that L.S. had suffered any significant injuries.
When L.S. was about ten-weeks-old, he was placed in the care of Richter, who ran a licensed child daycare from her home. On August 19, 2010, L.S.'s mother ("Mother") took him to daycare. She testified that he was alert and active when she dropped him off at approximately 9:00 a.m.
According to Richter's statements to police, shortly before 12:30 p.m. Richter picked up L.S. out of a walker in order to feed him lunch. As she picked him up, she was in the process of bringing him to her side and stepping backwards when another child came up behind her and caused her to lose her balance. Richter fell to the floor and, as she did, she lost her grasp of L.S. who fell onto the floor. The floor was concrete covered with linoleum. Richter said that she went to L.S., and that L.S. was on his right side and crying. She picked him up, and L.S. stopped moving. She attempted to rouse him by blowing in his face but L.S.'s head went limp and she believed he had broken his neck. Richter called her neighbor, Dawn Wilde, who worked from home and was the mother of another child. Wilde came immediately and instructed Richter to call 911. Wilde called Mother instructing her to come to the daycare.
At approximately 12:30 p.m., Mother received a phone call from Wilde reporting that there had been an accident with L.S., an ambulance was on the way, and Mother should come immediately. When Mother arrived, L.S. was lying on the floor in the back of the daycare. He was pale, his eyes were barely open, he was making odd squeaking and moaning sounds, having trouble breathing, and was moving his arms in a circular pattern. When the ambulance arrived about 20 minutes later, L.S. was placed on a backboard and transported to the local emergency room at Capital Regional Hospital in Jefferson City. Emergency room personnel immediately called for a life flight transport to take L.S. to University Hospital in Columbia, Missouri. L.S. was in serious condition with bleeding in his brain
, hemorrhaging in both eyes, and the lowest possible score on the Glasgow coma scale. He was intubated to help him breath.
The next day, L.S. was seen by Dr. Nitin Patel ("Dr. Patel"), a pediatric neurologist. Dr. Patel testified that L.S. had slowed brain activity, especially on the left side. A MRI scan showed a lack of blood supply to the brain that would have happened within three days prior to the scan. L.S. also had intracranial bleeding
and optic nerve swelling. Dr. Patel believed that L.S. "must have suffered what is called a shaken baby syndrome or non-accidental head trauma."
Dr. Joseph Giangiacomo ("Dr. Giangiacomo"), a pediatric ophthalmologist, also examined L.S. finding that L.S. had bilateral hemorrhages in his eyes
as well as an extensive amount of blood in his eyes that ultimately necessitated surgery. Further, it was Dr. Giangiacomo's opinion that the injuries were not caused by an accident.3
As a result of his injuries, L.S. developed Cerebral Palsy
, is developmentally delayed, is "more or less blind," and will require assistance for the remainder of his life.
The jury found Richter guilty of endangering the welfare of a child. The court sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Richter's first point on appeal alleges that there was insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable juror could have found her guilty of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree.
"This Court's review is limited to determining whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Letica, 356 S.W.3d 157, 166 (Mo. banc 2011). "The evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding any evidence and inferences contrary to the verdict." State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Mo. banc 2005). "This is not an assessment of whether the Court believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but rather a question of whether, in light of the evidence most favorable to the State, any rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted). When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a criminal conviction, the Court does not act as a ‘super juror’ with veto powers. State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 414 (Mo. banc 1993). In such cases, this Court gives great deference to the trier of fact. Id.
State v. Miller , 372 S.W.3d 455, 463 (Mo. banc 2012).
Analysis
As outlined above, all of the physicians who initially treated L.S. opined that his injuries were the result of abusive head trauma
, often referred to as "shaken baby syndrome." Dr. Downs testified that he believed the injury was caused just prior to L.S. being brought to the hospital. The State also presented the testimony of Dr. Douglas Beal ("Dr. Beal") who reviewed L.S.'s medical records, including records of his care and treatment before the August 19 injury. Dr. Beal also testified that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, L.S.'s injuries were caused by "abusive head trauma," and that the Further, Dr. Beal testified that the injury to L.S. "occurred within seconds to minutes before he was found unresponsive."
Richter highlights to this Court evidence presented at trial that Richter may not have intentionally injured L.S. Dr. Giangiacomo's deposition4 testimony was that he could not diagnose retinoschisis
, a condition often present in children that have been shaken. Dr. Giangiacomo also testified that the rapid growth of L.S.'s head--from the 25th percentile at one month old to the 97th at his sixth month exam--would be of concern to him, leading to the defense's conclusion that L.S. had a preexisting condition. Richter also points to the testimony of defense expert Dr. John Plunkett, that "there might have been a preexisting congenital disorder which caused the subdural hemorrhaging." Further, defense experts submitted evidence showing that L.S. may have had hemorrhaging that was chronic and had begun as much as 14 days before L.S. was taken to the hospital. This argument ignores our standard of review. The jury was free to discount this medical testimony and find that the testimony of the treating physicians and their opinions regarding when the injury occurred was more persuasive.
The jury's decision to believe the medical evidence presented by the State and find the defense witnesses less credible was not error. This Court cannot act as a super juror and reweight the evidence. Grim, 854 S.W.2d at 414. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Naylor
...which is a defining characteristic of elements. See State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138, 153–54 (Mo. banc 2012) ; State v. Richter, 504 S.W.3d 205, 211–12 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) ; State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192–93 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) ; see also Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at 2248, 2257 ; id. at 2268 (Al......
-
Linton v. Carter
...presume that omitted portions of the record are unfavorable to the party who relies on the omitted record. See State v. Richter, 504 S.W.3d 205, 208 n. 3 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). Therefore, because this argument was never presented to the trial court and because we were not provided the necess......
-
State v. Cruz-Basurto
...circuit court’s decision only if the instructional error misled the jury and, thereby, prejudiced the defendant." State v. Richter , 504 S.W.3d 205, 211 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citation omitted). In addition, reversal is required only "when the instructional error is so prejudicial that it de......
-
State v. Welch
...ultimate issue of guilt or innocence, and need not be unanimous as to the means by which the crime was committed." State v. Richter, 504 S.W.3d 205, 211 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). The source of the substantive law in this case is the statute for assault in the first degree. That statute states, ......