State of Tennessee v. Jacqueline Crank
2015 Tenn. LEXIS 109
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- In 2002 Jessica Crank (age 15) developed Ewing’s sarcoma; her mother Jacqueline Crank and religious affiliate relied on prayer instead of medical care; Jessica later died.
- Jacqueline Crank was indicted for child neglect based on failure to obtain medical treatment; bench trial used prior testimony and affidavits.
- The relevant statute contains a "spiritual treatment" exemption: treatment "by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets or practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."
- Trial court rejected Crank’s constitutional challenges (vagueness, Establishment, Equal Protection) and denied dismissal; convicted and sentenced to unsupervised probation.
- Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide vagueness and related constitutional and statutory questions, and whether the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (PRFA) applied retroactively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crank) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of spiritual-treatment exemption | Exemption’s terms (e.g., "recognized church," "duly accredited practitioner," "prayer alone") are unclear and fail to give fair warning | Statutory language and legislative history supply sufficient guidance; exemption limits apply (e.g., Christian Science–like groups) | Rejected. Exemption construed in context is not unconstitutionally vague; facial challenge considered because free-exercise interests implicated |
| Establishment & Equal Protection challenges | Exemption favors certain denominations (e.g., Christian Science), violating the Establishment Clause and denying equal protection | Even if exemption unconstitutional, proper remedy is to elide the exemption and preserve child‑neglect statute; no relief to Crank | Court declined to decide merits. If exemption were invalid, it would be severed and Crank would not obtain relief, so challenges need not be resolved |
| Remedy / Elision of unconstitutional exemption | Crank argues she should receive benefit or relief if exemption invalid | State: strike the exemption and leave child-abuse statute intact | Held: Elision is appropriate here; legislature would have enacted child‑abuse law without the exemption, so severing exemption preserves the statute |
| PRFA (Preservation of Religious Freedom Act) retroactivity | PRFA provides a defense unless State shows compelling interest and least-restrictive means; should apply to bar prosecution | PRFA enacted 2009; should not apply retroactively to conduct/prosecution in early 2000s | Held: PRFA is not retroactive; trial court correctly denied relief under PRFA |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pickett, 211 S.W.3d 696 (Tenn. 2007) (vagueness doctrine and due-process vocabulary)
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964) (warning against curing vagueness by retrospective limiting constructions)
- Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (distinguishing facial vagueness review when First Amendment interests implicated)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (Establishment Clause forbids official preference for one religious denomination)
- State v. Murray, 480 S.W.2d 355 (Tenn. 1972) (court will avoid constitutional ruling when severance/elision of offending provision leaves defendant with no relief)
- Hermanson v. State, 604 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1992) (Florida court reversed convictions where spiritual‑treatment exemption created vagueness/contradiction)
- State v. Lockhart, 664 P.2d 1059 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983) (upholding spiritual‑treatment exemption as sufficiently clear)