People v. Clark

556 N.W.2d 820 (1996)

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

The decedent was adopted when he was nine months old in March 1986. He died unexpectedly at the age of four. The medical examiner concluded that he died from dehydration. Child abuse was suspected because of ligature marks and bruises observed on his body. The decedent suffered from excessive and overwhelming thirst. He was described as a compulsive drinker and would go as far as drinking from toilets. He also suffered from frequent urination and began wetting the bed around two years of age. On the advice of her doctor, D restricted the child's liquid intake several hours before bedtime, starting at 7:00 p.m. She asked the teachers not to let him drink more water than the other children at school. She also restricted his intake during the hours that he was in her care. In March 1989, D found the child having a seizure in his room. D claimed he drank over a gallon of water earlier that day. The decedent had high salt levels that were inconsistent with drinking so much water. D took the child to the family physician, who sent him to the hospital for follow-up tests. The results of these tests were not reported to D. D disciplined her children with a belt and she would keep the decedent tied in bed with a cloth belt or nylon stockings to keep him from getting up at night. The medical examiner concluded that the child died because water was withheld from him. D was charged with involuntary manslaughter. P stated that the people did not have to prove that D intended that the child should die, but instead that her grossly negligent behavior of withholding fluids resulted in his death. D requested a change in the jury instruction on gross negligence. D wanted the phrase 'cause death' to replace cause 'serious injury.' P claimed they did not have to prove that D knew that her actions would cause death under the definition of gross negligence embodied in the manslaughter instructions. The judge changed his mind and decided that the instruction should not be given. The judge properly instructed the jury with the standard instruction that was the correct statement of the law. D objected because he had relied on the modified instruction in formulating his closing argument. During deliberations, the jury requested a 'definition of the guidelines to find negligence.' The jury returned a verdict of guilty. D moved for a mistrial which was denied. D appealed arguing that the modification of the jury instruction, D's reliance on the modification, and the judge's decision to give the unmodified instruction, was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal. It held that D being allowed reargument was not a reasonable resolution. P appealed.