Christina M. Mollenhauer v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0803202
| Va. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2021Background
- In 2016–2018 Christina Mollenhauer (appellant) lived with her son Robert and his children, including 3–4-year-old S.M., and helped care for them.
- Family members kept S.M. in a small, locked wooden enclosure/pen at night; caregivers said it was to control misbehavior and prevent her from accessing food.
- School and daycare staff reported repeated unexplained bruises, that S.M. appeared fearful, and that her lunches/snacks were unusually meager; staff were told she had allergies or bowel issues limiting food.
- A child-protection medical evaluation showed S.M.’s weight fell from high percentiles to the 4th percentile over two years, then rose rapidly after removal; Dr. Foster diagnosed failure to thrive from nutritional neglect and stated the record was consistent with a medical diagnosis of child torture.
- Christina and another adult were charged with child cruelty (Code § 40.1-103) and acquitted of separate child-abuse counts; the trial court convicted Christina of one 2018 count of child cruelty, sentenced to five years with suspension conditioned on good behavior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mollenhauer) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third clause of Code § 40.1-103 ("tortured or cruelly treated") is unconstitutionally vague | Terms like "torture[d]" and "cruelly treated" are undefined and therefore void for vagueness | Appellant failed to make a specific constitutional objection below; co-defendant's objection cannot preserve appellant's claim | Barred by Rule 5A:18 — appellant did not preserve a specific constitutional challenge, so court declines to reach vagueness merits |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Christina caused or permitted S.M. to be tortured or cruelly treated during the 2018 indictment period | Evidence did not establish torture/cruel treatment in 2018 or that appellant caused/permitted it | Cage/pen use, locked at night, food restrictions, precipitous weight loss, expert diagnosis and appellant’s admissions supported cause/permission | Evidence sufficient to prove appellant caused or permitted cruel treatment (court affirms conviction); no need to resolve "torture" higher standard |
| Whether the appellant preserved the issue by referencing prior case law or by comments at trial/post-trial | Defense cited Carter and made generalized comments about lack of definition; argued insufficiency of evidence based on dictionary meaning | Precise contemporaneous objection required; mere reference to Carter or generalized remarks did not preserve a new constitutional claim | Appellant did not expressly join co-defendant’s constitutional argument nor make her own specific objection; preservation lacking under Linnon and related precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Linnon v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 92 (Va. 2014) (one defendant may not rely on co-defendant's objection to preserve an appellate issue)
- Stokes v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 388 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (Rule 5A:18 bars appellate consideration of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 625 (Va. Ct. App. 2011) (specificity requirement: one argument does not preserve a separate legal point)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 21 Va. App. 150 (Va. Ct. App. 1995) (second clause of § 40.1-103 previously held unconstitutionally vague)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Pittman v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 632 (Va. Ct. App. 2019) (affirming conviction on cruel-treatment theory without resolving a higher torture standard)