203 Cal. App. 4th 319
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gregory and Yvonne Latham were convicted of second degree murder for Nanette Latham's death and of child endangerment; a 12022.95 enhancement applied to the endangerment count.
- Nanette suffered from type 1 diabetes and died from complications of diabetic ketoacidosis; the People alleged a conscious disregard for her life in failing to obtain medical treatment.
- Evidence showed Nanette’s condition worsened over several days prior to hospitalization; neighbors urged medical care, and appellants did not seek treatment.
- Appellants had prior diabetes training, including recognition of diabetic ketoacidosis, from Nanette’s 2001 hospitalization.
- Trial evidence included expert testimony on diabetic ketoacidosis and the seriousness of hyperglycemia (blood sugar 1297) without treatment.
- The verdicts were challenged as lacking sufficient evidence of implied malice; the court ultimately affirmed the judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for implied malice murder | People assert nurses that the Lathams knew Nanette’s life was endangered and acted with conscious disregard. | Lathams contend the evidence does not prove they knew the risk or acted with conscious disregard. | Yes; substantial evidence supports implied malice murder. |
| Caffero comparison and sufficiency | People argue Caffero is distinguishable and does not compel reversal. | Lathams argue Caffero supports insufficiency of evidence. | Caffero distinguished; record supports sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review: substantial evidence standard)
- People v. Rowland, 4 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 1992) (due process and sufficiency of evidence standard)
- People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980) (standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Rodriguez, 20 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1999) (circumstantial evidence and sufficiency framework)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (interpretation of implied malice)
- Burden, 72 Cal.App.3d 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (duty to act as a basis for omissions doctrine)
- Caffero, 207 Cal.App.3d 678 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (distinguishing where endangerment is not proven; prior warning required)
- Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958) (defendant's lack of concern as evidence of malice)
- Autry, 37 Cal.App.4th 351 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (warnings by others support inference of intent)
- Brogna, 202 Cal.App.3d 700 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (evidence of awareness of life-threatening risks)