Bethany Jane McBeth v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1999 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Senior Judge Cole
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
BETHANY JANE MCBETH
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1096-98-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JUNE 29, 1999
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG
John W. Scott, Jr., Judge
(Jeffrey Garth Edmunds, on brief), for
appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.
Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General;
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
On appeal from her conviction of child neglect, in
violation of Code § 18.2-371.1(B), Bethany Jane McBeth contends
that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.
We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
On appeal, we review the evidence in
the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable
inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The
judgment of a trial court sitting without a
jury is entitled to the same weight as a
jury verdict and will not be set aside
unless it plainly appears from the evidence
that the judgment is plainly wrong or
without evidence to support it.
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418
(1987).
On February 7, 1997, a social worker brought Anthony
Hatcher, McBeth's son, to Dr. Pamela Mancini for treatment. Dr.
Mancini testified that Anthony appeared unkempt and dehydrated
and that she observed several burns on his buttocks. She could
not tell whether the injuries were actual burns or were
abrasions caused by the child's being struck by a cord or rope.
She testified that the wounds were serious, but not
life-threatening, and had occurred within two weeks prior to the
medical visit. Anthony was admitted to the hospital for
treatment. No evidence of dehydration, infection, or other
ailment was introduced at trial. No evidence disclosed how
Social Services came to be involved in the case.
Anthony's babysitter testified that the injury had occurred
on or about February 1, 1997, while Anthony was in her care.
Her twelve-year-old son had caused Anthony to sit on the
electric space heater, the dimensions of which matched the
pattern of his burns. The babysitter phoned McBeth at work to
tell her of the injury, but no evidence disclosed that McBeth or
the babysitter discussed the severity of the burns. McBeth
applied an ointment to the burns, but sought no medical care
because of the expense, the consequences of taking time off
work, and her fear that Social Services would become involved.
- 2 -
Code § 18.2-371.1(B) provides:
Any parent, guardian, or other person
responsible for the care of a child under
the age of eighteen whose willful act or
omission in the care of such child was so
gross, wanton and culpable as to show a
reckless disregard for human life shall be
guilty of a Class 6 felony.
The trial court found that:
Even if the acts of [McBeth] did not
directly cause the injuries to her child,
her frequent and continued usage of this
baby-sitter given the continuous series of
injuries or "accidents" that were sustained
by her child while in the sitter's care were
so willful, wanton and culpable as to show a
reckless disregard for human life.
McBeth admitted that Anthony spent a great deal of time at
the babysitter's home. While the trial court examined the
cumulative effects of all the child's injuries, there was little
evidence as to which injuries (except the burns) had occurred in
the babysitter's home. No evidence established that McBeth left
Anthony in the babysitter's care following his burns or that he
suffered significant other injuries, while in the babysitter's
care, either before or after the burns.
The Commonwealth argues that McBeth's failure to obtain
proper medical attention for Anthony, following his burns,
supports her conviction. We disagree. Plainly, McBeth's
response to Anthony's serious injuries was negligent and highly
derelict. However, she cannot be held to a level of
understanding beyond her education and experience. The doctor
- 3 -
perceived a need for medical treatment. There was no evidence
that a person of McBeth's education and experience should have
had the same perception. The evidence established that
Anthony's injuries, though serious and painful, were not
life-threatening. Under these circumstances, McBeth's approach
to Anthony's injuries was not "so gross, wanton or culpable as
to show a reckless disregard for human life." Code
§ 18.2-371.1(B).
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Reversed.
- 4 -