State v. Hockett ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Hockett, 2011-Ohio-2911.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 95232
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
MAURICE C. HOCKETT
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-518448 and CR-519602
BEFORE: Sweeney, J., Boyle, P.J., and Keough, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 16, 2011
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Ronald Skingle, Esq.
2450 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason, Esq.
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Katherine Mullin, Esq.
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Maurice C. Hockett appeals his convictions
for felonious assault, domestic violence, and two counts of child
endangerment as being based upon insufficient evidence. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Defendant was indicted in various cases with multiple count
indictments, which were consolidated for trial. The charges arose from
injuries suffered by defendant’s four month old daughter, N.C.H. The
offenses were alleged to have occurred between November 1, 2008 and
November 24, 2008. N.C.H.’s mother, Sharday Clapton, was also charged as a
co-defendant in one case. Defendant moved for acquittal on all counts. In
CR-518448, the jury found defendant guilty of child endangering in violation
of R.C. 2919.22(A) with an additional finding that the victim was under
eighteen years of age. In CR-519602, the jury found defendant guilty of
felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); two counts of child
endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) and 2919.22(B)(1), with an
additional finding that the victim was under the eighteen years of age; and
domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A).
{¶ 3} Defendant’s sole assignment of error relates to his convictions in
CR-519602 only, and he contends:
{¶ 4} “Appellant’s four convictions of felonious assault, endangering
children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) and (B)(1) and domestic violence in
Case No. CR-519602 are not supported by sufficient evidence.”
{¶ 5} An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of
the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence
admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would
convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶ 6} Defendant was charged with felonious assault in violation of R.C.
2903.11(A)(1), which provides: “(A) No person shall knowingly * * * [c]ause
serious physical harm to another or to another’s unborn;”
{¶ 7} He was also charged with child endangering pursuant to R.C.
2919.22(A) and (B)(1), which provides:
{¶ 8} “(A) No person, who is the parent, guardian, custodian, person
having custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen
years of age or a mentally or physically handicapped child under twenty-one
years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child,
by violating a duty of care, protection, or support. It is not a violation of a
duty of care, protection, or support under this division when the parent,
guardian, custodian, or person having custody or control of a child treats the
physical or mental illness or defect of the child by spiritual means through
prayer alone, in accordance with the tenets of a recognized religious body.
{¶ 9} “(B) No person shall do any of the following to a child under
eighteen years of age or a mentally or physically handicapped child under
twenty-one years of age:
{¶ 10} “(1) Abuse the child.”
{¶ 11} Defendant’s final conviction was for domestic violence as set forth
in R.C. 2919.25(A) as follows: “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to
cause physical harm to a family or household member.”
{¶ 12} These charges related to injuries sustained by defendant’s
daughter, including a subdural hematoma. The indictment charged that the
offenses occurred between November 1, 2008 and November 24, 2008, the day
she was admitted to the hospital due to concerns over her low weight.
{¶ 13} Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to
establish that he knowingly caused serious physical harm or physical harm to
his daughter and that he recklessly abused or violated a duty to protect her
from abuse. He premises his argument on the fact that various individuals
participated in the care of N.C.H. and an absence of direct evidence that he
inflicted any of the injuries that were suffered by his four month old
daughter, which included failure to thrive, a fractured wrist, chronic subdural
hematomas caused by “non-accidental trauma, inflicted trauma, or shaken
baby syndrome,” and retinal hemorrhages.
{¶ 14} A social worker from Cuyahoga County Department of Children
and Family Services testified to her involvement with N.C.H. that began on
April 29, 2008. She testified that defendant and Clopton turned down
offered assistance for both N.C.H. and her older brother. They also refused
five referrals for in-home nursing assistance.
{¶ 15} Another social worker, Holly Williams, testified concerning the
agency’s efforts concerning the care and custody of N.C.H. and her older
brother who had been removed from the home. Williams testified that
defendant had threatened her and refused her entry during an attempted
home visit. Williams said that defendant stated he would “harm me, he
would shoot me, he would bomb the agency.” The parents also canceled
several home visits and failed to take N.C.H. to scheduled medical
appointments despite an on-going concern over the infant’s low weight.
Williams testified that defendant took N.C.H. to some medical appointments,
which were required once a month. However, he indicated that the
appointment was not conducive to his work schedule. Efforts were made to
accommodate defendant’s schedule but he still failed to bring N.C.H. back for
the appointment.
{¶ 16} After three or four home visits were canceled, Williams attempted
to facilitate a visit by coordinating a sibling visit between N.C.H. and her
brother at the hospital. By this time, N.C.H. was “extremely, extremely tiny
and looked the size of a newborn.” Williams and others were able to convince
Clopton to take N.C.H. to the emergency room where she was admitted with
concerns regarding her weight.
{¶ 17} Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient that it was
him who caused these injuries to N.C.H. Defendant points to the witnesses’
inability to identify how N.C.H. had sustained the injuries, exactly when she
sustained them, and who caused them.
{¶ 18} As set forth above, there is sufficient testimony that N.C.H.
suffered a fractured wrist and head injuries within weeks prior to being
admitted to the hospital. There is also evidence that defendant and the
co-defendant were the ones who took care of her. There is direct evidence
that N.C.H was obviously underweight yet defendant failed to take her to
scheduled appointments. That she gained weight without a problem when
properly fed indicates that her caretakers, which were defendant and the
co-defendant, were not properly feeding her. Both caretakers were indicted
in the case at bar.
{¶ 19} We note that defendant is not challenging his conviction for child
endangering that stemmed from the incident at that occurred at the hospital.
However, the evidence is probative of how defendant handled and treated
N.C.H.
{¶ 20} Defendant simply ignores his erratic behavior at the hospital,
where multiple witnesses observed him handling the child in a rough and
unsafe manner. These facts alone distinguish this case from those at issue
in State v. Miley (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 738, 684 N.E.2d 102, upon which
defendant relies. See, also, State v. Cheney-Shaw, Cuyahoga App. Nos.
76828 and 76829.1 Witnesses observed defendant squeezing the baby harder
1
Further, the injuries at issue in Miley were internal without any external
manifestations. Here, while there were internal injuries, there also was an on-going
concern over the child’s low weight in spite of which defendant failed to attend some
scheduled appointments.
and harder causing her eyes to bulge; ramming into doors at full force while
holding the baby and without properly supporting her head.
{¶ 21} A few hours after N.C.H. had been admitted to the hospital on
November 24, 2008, defendant entered her hospital room. Nurses at
Rainbow Babies and Children Hospital testified that they heard a commotion
and saw defendant running out of the room with N.C.H. in his arms. He
“ran through the nurses station, jumped over the reception desk * * * and was
holding the baby. He tried to ram his body into the locked double doors to
try to escape* * *.” Security was called because of defendant’s behavior and
the danger it posed to the baby including that “he tried to ram through double
doors holding an infant in his arms.” It was possible that the baby could
have touched the double doors as he was ramming forward into them. Other
witnesses described defendant ramming the door with his shoulder with full
force while holding the baby.
{¶ 22} The baby’s head was draped over defendant’s arm and he was not
supporting it. Clopton asked defendant to give her the baby but he refused.
Defendant was handling N.C.H. roughly, “her head was not being supported.”
A nurse told defendant to support the baby’s head and defendant responded
by yelling obscenities and hitting the nurse. A few times defendant said, “I’m
her protection and she’s mine.”
{¶ 23} When nurses approached and attempted to take the baby from
him for safety, defendant yelled, “F*** you. Who are you to be telling me
about my child.” Nurses and aids continued their efforts to obtain the baby
“so she would be safe.” Their primary concern was for the safety of the child.
One of the nurses was reaching for the baby saying, “Please give me the
child so she can be safe” and defendant slapped her.
{¶ 24} Security guards arrived with pepper spray. As security was
trying to take the baby, defendant was struggling “whipping his body around
and her head is just going around.” The nurse was very nervous for the
baby, “how she was being handled.” A security guard observed defendant
continuously squeezing the baby hard. Defendant said at one point, “You are
making me hurt her. You are making me hurt her,” and he would keep
squeezing her harder. According to the guard defendant “keeps squeezing
the child harder and harder. Her eyes are starting to bulge from her head * *
* When he’s squeezing her, her eyes were bulging out of her head.”
{¶ 25} Clopton jumped on one of the security guards. Eventually, the
baby was recovered and taken by nurses to a secured area. The baby’s face
was red on her nose, forehead, and cheek. The guards had to force defendant
to the floor.
{¶ 26} The agency obtained a telephonic order of removal based on
defendant’s erratic behavior and attempt to remove N.C.H. from the hospital
against medical advice.
{¶ 27} With respect to the charges involved in CR-519602, it was
determined that N.C.H. was gaining weight when fed properly. The wrist
injury occurred approximately 7 to 10 days prior to N.C.H.’s admission to the
hospital. Upon further examination, other injuries were discovered that
pre-dated N.C.H.’s admission to the hospital and included a subdural
hemotoma.
{¶ 28} The pediatric neurosurgeon testified that after N.C.H. was
admitted for failure to thrive, the hospital took an x-ray to evaluate for
rickets. That x-ray revealed a fractured wrist, which prompted further
evaluation for inflicted trauma. Imaging studies of N.C.H.’s head, taken on
November 26, 2008, showed she had abnormal fluid collections over the brain.
Between the time N.C.H had been admitted and when the neurosurgeon saw
her, the baby’s head circumference had increased markedly, which is
indicative of pressure. The infant required surgery to relieve the pressure on
her skull. The neurosurgeon concluded that the injury was “some assault to
the baby that was not a natural accident.” The type of subdural hematoma
present in N.C.H. takes a significant amount of force to inflict, such as violent
shaking or slamming the child’s head against the wall. According to the
doctor, the injury could not have resulted from an accidental drop or fall.
The doctor was unable to tell whether N.C.H. will suffer permanent
developmental delays as a result of the injury. N.C.H. has also developed
seizures. N.C.H. also had retinal hemorrhages that can be present from
immediately after the injury and last for about two weeks.
{¶ 29} The doctor opined that N.C.H.’s injuries could have been inflicted
during a time frame somewhere between three days up to a few weeks prior.
The doctor did not know where the injuries were caused or who caused them
but stated that “somebody inflicted this on [N.C.H.].”
{¶ 30} According to the record, defendant was at home with N.C.H.
when she was not at day care. Clopton indicated to the social worker that
defendant was the primary caregiver of the children due to the fact that
Clopton worked full-time and attended school. The social worker was aware
that defendant worked from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. and Clopton worked from 6 a.m.
to 3 p.m. Numerous witnesses testified to the fact that N.C.H. was obviously
underweight. The parents did not take N.C.H. to medical appointments and
missed well visits. The medical professionals testified that N.C.H. gained
weight when she was fed properly. Despite the child’s fractured wrist,
neither parent reported any injury to the child, nor did either parent ever
express any concerns about it. At least one medical professional testified
that the child most likely would exhibit symptoms as a consequence of the
fracture. Similarly, neither parent noticed or reported any symptoms of the
child’s head injury that was discovered at the hospital.
{¶ 31} A parent clearly has a duty imposed by law to protect his or her
child from abuse and to care for the child’s injuries. See State v. Sammons
(1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 460, 463, 12 O.O.3d 384, 391 N.E.2d 713.
{¶ 32} The standard of review requires that the evidence be viewed in a
light most favorable to the state. Applying this standard, the record contains
sufficient evidence to withstand defendant’s motions for acquittal on the
subject counts and this assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated.
Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JAMES J. SWEENEY, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR