Kaniesha Shatae Hannon v. Commonwealth of Virginia
68 Va. App. 87
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kaniesha Hannon was charged and convicted in Henry County Circuit Court of two counts of felony child endangerment under Va. Code § 18.2-371.1(B)(1) for leaving a 5-year-old and a 4-month-old unattended in an unlocked car in a Dollar General parking lot.
- Stipulated facts: deputy found the children at 6:12 p.m.; outside temperature ~48°F; doors were unlocked; a bystander estimated the children were alone ~10 minutes; store video showed Hannon inside the store 14 minutes 34 seconds.
- CPS removed the children for the night, conducted an assessment the next day, found the complaint unfounded, and returned the children to Hannon; no injury occurred.
- Trial court relied on Miller v. Commonwealth (a misdemeanor child neglect case) to find Hannon’s conduct rose to the felony standard of "gross, wanton, and culpable" showing reckless disregard for human life.
- On appeal, Hannon argued the undisputed facts did not establish the statutory felony elements—specifically that her omission created a substantial or probable risk of injury or showed reckless disregard for human life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leaving the two children unattended for ~15 minutes in an unlocked car satisfied § 18.2-371.1(B)(1) (felony) | Commonwealth: the act created a substantial risk of harm (risk of abduction, car theft, child leaving car, general danger in parking lot); Miller supports conviction | Hannon: short time, mild weather, unlocked but public lot, 5‑yr‑old could summon help; conduct not likely to cause injury or show reckless disregard | Reversed: undisputed facts insufficient for felony; risk was speculative, not a substantial/probable risk of injury |
| Whether Miller (misdemeanor § 18.2-371) controls analysis for felony § 18.2-371.1(B)(1) | Commonwealth: Miller analogous (children left unattended in car) | Hannon: Miller prosecuted under different statute lacking "gross/wanton" element; facts in Miller more egregious | Miller distinguishable; trial court erred to rely on it as basis for felony conviction |
| Whether precedent Coomer requires reversal | Hannon: Coomer established that speculative possibility of harm is insufficient for § 18.2-371.1(B)(1) conviction | Commonwealth: attempted to distinguish but conceded Coomer involved greater risk | Court held Coomer controlling and required reversal because risk there exceeded risk here |
| Whether actual injury is required for § 18.2-371.1(B)(1) | Commonwealth: statute punishes conduct that creates likely risk, not necessarily causing injury | Hannon: emphasized lack of injury as evidence risk was low | Court: actual injury not required, but proof must show substantial/probable risk; here that element was not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 527, 769 S.E.2d 706 (Va. Ct. App. 2015) (misdemeanor child neglect conviction for leaving child unattended in car; facts more egregious and statute differs from felony provision)
- Coomer v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 537, 797 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2017) (speculative possibility of harm insufficient to sustain conviction under § 18.2-371.1(B)(1))
- Barrett v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 170, 597 S.E.2d 104 (Va. 2004) (defines “gross, wanton, and culpable” and willfulness in child neglect context)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 692, 636 S.E.2d 403 (Va. 2006) (§ 18.2-371.1(B)(1) requires more than mere possibility of harm — substantial or probable risk needed)
- Duncan v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 377, 593 S.E.2d 210 (Va. 2004) (absence of injury in (B)(1) shows statute targets conduct creating potential to endanger life)
- Kelly v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 347, 592 S.E.2d 353 (Va. Ct. App. 2004) (example where prolonged confinement in extreme weather and other factors supported felony conviction under § 18.2-371.1(B)(1))