State Of Washington v. Melissa Cathryn McMillen, & PRP of McMillen
45586-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 18, 2017Background
- In June 2011 Melissa McMillen delivered a full‑term infant alone in her basement, left the newborn in a toilet for ~90 minutes, wrapped the body in a towel and bag, and hid it; law enforcement found the baby three days later.
- Autopsy by Dr. Thomas Clark: full‑term female, lungs and GI contained air (indicating breathing/swallowing), large scalp hematoma and subdural hemorrhage, cause of death likely drowning/hypothermia although not definitively shown.
- Defense/rebuttal expert (Dr. Clifford Nelson) disputed some autopsy inferences (air could be post‑mortem/gas from decomposition; could not conclusively say baby was born alive).
- McMillen was tried by bench trial, found guilty of abandonment in the second degree and felony murder in the second degree (felony murder based on death during commission of abandonment); court rejected deliberate cruelty aggravator but found victim vulnerability aggravated factor.
- McMillen appealed and filed a consolidated personal restraint petition raising sufficiency of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, expert admissibility, and privacy/equal protection challenges; appellate court affirmed conviction and denied PRP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McMillen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for abandonment and felony murder | Evidence (autopsy findings, baby found hidden, McMillen’s admissions) supports that baby was born alive, was recklessly abandoned, and died as a result | Evidence was insufficient because baby may have been stillborn or injuries non‑survivable; corpus delicti not independently established | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports abandonment and felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Corpus delicti / admissibility of McMillen’s statements | Independent physical and medical evidence corroborated that a live birth and criminal conduct occurred | Trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements under corpus delicti rule | Motion would have failed; counsel not ineffective on this ground |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate/raise defenses, counsel’s personal issues) | Defense strategy (argue baby not born alive) determined exclusions (e.g., neonaticide evidence, jail mental‑health witness); no prejudice shown | Counsel failed to present neonaticide syndrome, diminished capacity, jail mental‑health testimony, and was distracted by personal issues, causing deficient performance and prejudice | No deficient performance or no prejudice: strategic choices reasonable; State’s evidence was overwhelming, so no Strickland relief |
| Expert testimony (Dr. Duralde) admissibility | Expert on pediatric/head injuries competent and testimony helpful to determine timing of head trauma | Testimony unreliable or outside witness’s qualifications; admission abused discretion | Trial court did not abuse discretion: Duralde sufficiently qualified and testimony was relevant and helpful |
| Constitutional claims (privacy and equal protection) | State has compelling interest in protecting dependent children; parental duties to provide medical care justify prosecution for abandoning a live infant | Criminalizing failure to seek medical care for home birth violates right to privacy and equal protection | Rejected: conviction for abandoning a live infant does not infringe McMillen’s privacy or equal protection rights |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311 (Wash. 2007) (corpus delicti rule requires independent evidence to corroborate confession)
- State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640 (Wash. 1996) (corpus delicti in homicide: death occurred and causal connection to criminal act)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (Wash. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; substantial evidence test)
- State v. Manussier, 129 Wn.2d 652 (Wash. 1996) (equal protection analysis framework)
- In re Welfare of Colyer, 99 Wn.2d 114 (Wash. 1983) (discussing privacy/right to refuse medical treatment and state interests)