Johnson v. State

224 P.3d 105 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was the father of an infant girl, Christina. Christina died after prolonged abuse by her mother, Heather Takak. Takak starved Christina to the point where the infant had essentially no fat left in her body, and her muscles had atrophied. Christina looked like a famine victim at the time of her death. The jury found that the immediate cause of Christina's death was Takak's act of intentionally dropping Christina on the floor head-first, causing trauma to her skull and brain. This physical assault (which preceded Christina's death by one to three days) caused Christina's brain to hemorrhage and swell inside her skull, leading to her death. D was tried for second-degree murder premised on a parent's duty to protect his child from physical harm. The state medical examiner testified that both head trauma and starvation caused Christina's death and that the head trauma would have killed Christina even if she had not been starved, but either had the capacity to kill her. D's forensic pathologist testified that although Christina was profoundly starved and would likely have died, the sole cause of Christina's death was the head trauma and starvation neither caused nor contributed to her death. D argued that even if it found he had been aware that Takak was starving Christina, he had no reason to be aware of a particular danger that Takak might assault Christina. D was convicted of manslaughter. The jury also returned a special verdict form showing unanimous agreement that the cause of Christina's death was head trauma, not starvation or a combination of the two. D moved for acquittal, arguing that the verdict established that starvation did not contribute to Christina's death. The trial court treated the motion as a request for a new trial, vacated the verdict, and ordered a new trial. D appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial and affirmed the manslaughter conviction, stating that D's conviction 'stands or falls' on whether a reasonable jury could conclude Takak's physical assault on Christina was foreseeable. D appealed.