Corvi v. State, 296 Ga. 557

In April 2012 Marta Corvi moved in with the Juarez family and agreed informally to supervise their children in exchange for room and board; she also brought her five‑year‑old granddaughter Mia to stay on June 9–10, 2012.
On June 10, 2012 Corvi was supervising three children (two five‑year‑olds and a 13‑year‑old) when she took a 45‑minute personal phone call after confirming the girls were playing upstairs; she has diabetes and took medication to treat low blood sugar during this period.
When the Juarez parents returned from shopping at about 1:41 p.m., the two girls were missing from the house and were discovered unresponsive in the backyard pool; both later died despite resuscitation attempts.
A grand jury charged Corvi with two counts of cruelty to children in the second degree (OCGA § 16‑5‑70(c)) and two counts of reckless conduct (OCGA § 16‑5‑60(b)); a jury convicted on all counts and the trial court imposed combined jail and probationary sentences.
On appeal Corvi challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions for crimes based on criminal negligence and (2) the indictment as void for vagueness as applied; the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed for insufficiency of the evidence and did not reach the vagueness claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Corvi)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for crimes based on criminal negligence (cruelty to children 2d degree; reckless conduct)	Corvi argued the evidence did not show willful, wanton, or reckless conduct — she stayed in the house, told the girls not to swim, confirmed they were playing upstairs, and had no history of negligent supervision.	State argued Corvi’s 45‑minute phone call and failure to supervise created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the children’s safety constituting criminal negligence.	Reversed: evidence insufficient. The record did not establish that the phone call or omission rose to criminal negligence given uncertainty about when the drownings occurred and lack of evidence of a dangerous practice or propensity to disobey.
Indictment void for vagueness (as‑applied)	Corvi contended the statutes as applied were unconstitutionally vague in charging omission‑based criminal negligence under these facts.	State maintained the indictment adequately charged the offenses under the criminal negligence standard.	Not reached: court reversed on sufficiency and therefore did not decide the vagueness claim.

Kain v. State, 287 Ga. App. 45 (contrast where evidence of routinely leaving children unsupervised supported criminal‑negligence convictions)
Baker v. State, 280 Ga. 822 (example where leaving small children in objectively dangerous circumstances supported reckless‑conduct conviction)
Reyes v. State, 242 Ga. App. 170 (routine dangerous omissions by caretaker supported criminal‑negligence conviction)
Johnson v. State, 292 Ga. 856 (failure to seek timely medical attention and prior dangerous conduct supported cruelty to a child conviction)