Britain, Samantha Amity
412 S.W.3d 518
Tex. Crim. App.2013Background
- Appellant Samantha Britain was tried for manslaughter and injury to a child after her eight-year-old stepdaughter, Sarah, died of acute appendicitis; the State alleged Britain’s failure to seek medical care caused the death.
- Facts: Sarah had repeated visits to the school nurse over one day, vomited that evening and the next day, had diarrhea but continued to drink water, and was found dead the evening after vomiting began; time of death estimates varied.
- Medical evidence was conflicting: five medical witnesses disagreed about cause, timing, severity, diagnosability, and whether Sarah asphyxiated on vomit; several experts testified appendicitis could be easily mistaken for stomach flu and difficult for laypersons to diagnose.
- Trial jury convicted Britain of manslaughter (requiring recklessness). The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding evidence insufficient to prove recklessness and entered acquittals on both counts.
- The State Prosecuting Attorney sought review asking whether the Court of Appeals should have reformed the verdict to the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide rather than acquitting; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court should reform verdict to lesser-included offense (criminally negligent homicide) instead of rendering acquittal | State: Bowen permits courts of appeals to reform convictions to lesser-included offenses; here manslaughter verdict implies negligence, so reform is appropriate | Britain: Court of Appeals found no evidence of required mens rea; lesser offense not necessarily proven beyond reasonable doubt | Held: Court may reform but is not required; because the State failed to prove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt, reforming would be improper — acquittal affirmed |
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove recklessness (manslaughter) | State: Jury found recklessness; prosecution argued facts support the verdict | Britain: Evidence and expert testimony show diagnosis was difficult and ambiguous; no proof she was aware of substantial risk | Held: Insufficient evidence of recklessness; convictions reversed by Court of Appeals and affirmed here |
| Whether evidence proved criminal negligence (lesser-included offense) | State: Jury’s guilty verdict on manslaughter indicates negligence proved; appellate court should infer lesser mens rea | Britain: Jury’s error on recklessness undermines confidence; record lacks proof ordinary person should have been aware of risk | Held: Evidence did not prove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt given conflicting expert testimony and lack of standard-of-care proof; cannot reform verdict |
| Standard for appellate reformation to lesser offense when essential element missing | State: Bowen allows reformation when lesser elements are proven | Britain: Bowen does not compel reformation when essential elements are absent | Held: Bowen permits but does not require reformation; appellate court should not render conviction for lesser offense unless all its elements are proved beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for convictions)
- Bowen v. State, 374 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (courts of appeals may reform to lesser-included offenses but should not usurp factfinder)
- Schroeder v. State, 123 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App.) (mens rea for result-oriented offenses must relate to the resulting harm)
- Masterson v. State, 155 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. Crim. App.) (distinction between reckless and negligent culpable mental states)