Danna Presley Cyr v. State, 630 S.W.3d 380

On June 29–30, 2013, infant J.D. suffered subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages, and brain swelling consistent with violent shaking; medical experts testified shaking caused the injuries.
At the scene Justin Cyr choked J.D.; Danna Presley Cyr (Appellant) intervened and told Justin to stop; no witness testified to seeing violent shaking and Appellant did not witness any shaking.
After a period of limpness, the child briefly appeared normal; parents did not take J.D. to the nearby Denver City hospital that night and instead brought the child to Lubbock the next morning when seizures began.
Medical personnel concluded earlier stabilization might have mitigated injury; investigators learned Justin may have avoided the local hospital to avoid CPS involvement; both parents were arrested for child abuse.
Appellant was indicted for recklessly, by omission, causing serious bodily injury to a child by failing to protect J.D. or by failing to obtain reasonable medical care; a jury convicted Appellant and assessed 15 years’ confinement.
On appeal Appellant argued (1) the trial court erred by refusing a concurrent-causation jury instruction and (2) the evidence was legally insufficient to prove she recklessly caused J.D.’s injury by omission; the court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cyr)	Held
Whether the court erred by refusing Appellant's proposed concurrent-causation instruction (Penal Code §6.04)	No instruction required because evidence did not establish that a concurrent cause (Justin) was "clearly sufficient" and Appellant "clearly insufficient."	Evidence showed Justin’s conduct alone was sufficient to cause the injuries and there was evidence Appellant’s omission was clearly insufficient — so the jury should have been instructed on concurrent causation.	Reversed: error to omit the instruction; evidence raised the defense when viewed favorably to Appellant and omission caused harm; remand for new trial.
Whether the evidence was legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to prove Cyr recklessly caused serious bodily injury by omission (failing to seek prompt medical care)	Evidence (expert testimony and facts about delayed/stabilizing care and decision to drive far to avoid local CPS) was sufficient for a rational juror to find Cyr acted recklessly and her delay could have mitigated injury.	Evidence insufficient because causation was speculative and Justin’s actions were the actual cause; Appellant did not consciously disregard a substantial unjustifiable risk.	Overruled: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt Cyr recklessly caused injury by failing to obtain prompt medical care.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm analysis for preserved jury-charge error)
Robbins v. State, 717 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (interpretation of Penal §6.04 concurrent-causation language)
Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (all alleged jury-charge error considered on appeal)
Wright v. State, 494 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015) (concurrent-cause context where principal actor’s conduct was clearly sufficient)
Payton v. State, 106 S.W.3d 326 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (failure to seek medical care must be shown to have caused the serious injury)
Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (trial court must include both abstract law and its application in jury charge)