Shelley Walker v. State
12-12-00379-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Kenneth and Shelley Walker were charged with intentionally or knowingly injuring Bridget, a nearly three-year-old, by immersing her feet in hot water in the master bathroom tub.
- A consolidated trial produced convictions for injury to a child with a deadly-weapon finding; the appellate court affirmed.
- The State relied on expert testimony to show intentional immersion, while the defense argued the injuries could be accidental and caused by the children’s conduct.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to assess sufficiency of the evidence; the court ultimately reversed and acquitted.
- Key physical facts included the tub’s water temperature readings, lack of splash marks, burn symmetry, and multiple conflicting witness accounts; the record showed no direct proof of which adult caused the injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proves intentional injury beyond a reasonable doubt | Walker (State) argues evidence supports intentional immersion | Walkers contend only suspicion; no proof of intentional act | Evidence insufficient; acquittal for both Walker defendants |
| Whether expert testimony was sufficiently reliable to prove the conduct | State contends experts’ conclusions are probative of intentional conduct | Defense argues expert conclusions rest on incomplete facts and speculation | Expert opinions too speculative and based on incomplete facts; not probative |
| Whether the convictions could be reformed to a lesser-included offense | State seeks reform to lesser offense if supported by evidence | No viable lesser-included offense evidence | Court declined to reform; acquittal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard: rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (reliability of scientific evidence in sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (limits on credibility determinations and require support for opinions)
- Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2004) (reliance on expert opinion must be supported by facts; not just methodology)
- Holloway v. State, 613 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (expert testimony must be based on proved facts; not conclusory)
- Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for reasonable-doubt review; avoids speculation)