Snow v. State, 568 S.W.3d 290

Jonathan Snow and the baby’s mother, Alyssia Kirby, were charged after a three-week-old infant was admitted with bruises, a broken clavicle, severe brain injuries, and seizures; both parents were the only caregivers identified for the relevant period.
Snow recorded videos on his phone showing the infant seizing and voluntarily showed those videos to investigators; Kirby offered explanations (e.g., seat-belt latch, another child dropping the baby) but her statements were excluded as hearsay in part.
Medical testimony established life-threatening brain trauma and bleeding most consistent with significant contact/impact; doctors could not identify the perpetrator but said delayed care worsened the outcome.
At trial Snow moved for directed verdicts arguing insufficiency of evidence on both counts; the court denied the motions and a jury convicted Snow of first‑degree battery and first‑degree endangering the welfare of a child.
The court of appeals reversed and dismissed the first‑degree battery conviction (finding the State failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that Kirby was the perpetrator) but affirmed the conviction for first‑degree endangering (finding omission to seek timely care created a substantial risk and exacerbated injury).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Snow)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree battery	State relied on circumstantial evidence only; evidence did not exclude reasonable hypothesis that Kirby inflicted the injuries	Physical injuries occurred while only Snow and Kirby had access; improbability of explanations, Snow’s delay and conduct support inference of guilt	Reversed and dismissed — circumstantial evidence did not exclude another reasonable hypothesis (Kirby)
Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree endangering the welfare of a child	Snow argued omission to act did not show purposeful conduct creating substantial risk	Snow observed seizures, delayed seeking care for ~2 days, and that omission worsened injuries; omission is ‘‘conduct’’ under statute	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports conviction based on purposeful omission creating substantial risk and exacerbating harm

Holland v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 49, 510 S.W.3d 311 (circumstantial‑evidence sufficiency standard)
Wells v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 174, 518 S.W.3d 106 (review of substantial‑evidence test)
Henson v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 703, 450 S.W.3d 677 (circumstantial evidence cannot be reconciled with another reasonable theory)
Reams v. State, 45 Ark. App. 7, 870 S.W.2d 404 (upholding child‑battery conviction on circumstantial evidence and improbable explanations)
Payne v. State, 21 Ark. App. 243, 731 S.W.2d 235 (affirming child‑battery conviction where medical evidence and improbable explanations supported guilt)
Fudge v. State, 341 Ark. 759, 20 S.W.3d 315 (two equally reasonable conclusions create only suspicion and cannot support conviction)