Michelle Elaine Bearnth v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8555
Tex. App.2011Background
- Bearnth, the sole adult with five children in the home, cared for KP., Perkins’s two-year-old daughter who was blind in one eye, who suffered severe injuries and died about a week later.
- KP. sustained head injuries and dozens of bruises; the medical record indicated injuries were not consistent with a short fall and suggested blunt force trauma.
- The State charged Bearnth with injury to a child; the indictment was amended to felony murder with underlying injury to a child; trial court denied the motion to quash.
- At trial, medical experts linked the injuries to non-accidental blunt force trauma; Bearnth and several witnesses offered explanations of accidents and caregiver conduct.
- The jury convicted Bearnth of felony murder through injury to a child and assessed a 33-year sentence; a motion for new trial alleging juror intimidation was denied by operation of law.
- On appeal, Bearnth challenged sufficiency of the evidence, the indictment, the underlying felony, prosecutorial vindictiveness, and the new-trial proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Bearnth contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient. | State argues the aggregate evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence sufficient to support felony murder via injury to a child. |
| Pari materia: felony murder vs. injury to a child | Bearnth asserts the offenses are in pari materia and should have the underlying injury to a child as the basis. | State maintains no pari materia requirement; different objectives and elements exist. | Not in pari materia; secure that felony murder and injury to a child are distinct offenses. |
| Underlying felony | Bearnth asserts injury to a child cannot serve as the underlying felony for felony murder. | Injury to a child can underlie felony murder under Texas law. | Under Texas law, injury to a child may serve as the underlying felony. |
| Prosecutorial vindictiveness | Amendment to add felony murder after she exercised her right to trial by jury suggests vindictiveness. | Record shows no improper motive; hearing occurred and arguments were fully presented. | No prosecutorial vindictiveness shown; no reversible error. |
| New-trial hearing | Bearnth was entitled to a hearing on jury-intimidation claims not determinable from the record. | Presentment and record-keeping requirements were not satisfied; no error in overruling by operation of law. | No right to a new-trial hearing; presentment not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (Jackson standard applied to both legal and factual sufficiency)
- Lomax v. State, 233 S.W.3d 302 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (parsing elements and underlying felonies in pari materia)
- Burke v. State, 28 S.W.3d 545 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (pari materia analysis factors)
- Hollin v. State, 227 S.W.3d 117 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (paris materia framework and purpose proof)
- Mills v. State, 722 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (special vs general statute in pari materia when penalties differ)
- Garcia v. State, 16 S.W.3d 401 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000) (sole access and circumstantial evidence support injury-to-child verdict)