State v. Bennett, 2013 Ohio 5524

In June 2012, eight-year-old K.B., a child with epilepsy, Landau-Kleffner syndrome, and developmental disorders on the autism spectrum, was observed by his grandmother to have scratches, rug burn, and a bruise in the shape of a handprint.
Grandmother reported the injuries to police; photographs of K.B.’s injuries and voluntary statements from defendant Katrina Bennett (the mother) and James Lamb (a friend) were admitted at a joint bench trial.
Bennett testified she asked Lamb to help discipline K.B. during prolonged tantrums on June 25; Lamb administered "military-style" exercises (army crawl, standing against a wall holding a broom) and gave three swats to K.B.’s buttocks. Bennett said the butt bruise may have predated the incident.
Lamb admitted imposing the exercises and spanking; both described K.B.’s severe tantrums (hitting, head-banging, throwing things).
Bennett was charged under R.C. 2919.22(A) (child endangering by creating a substantial risk via breach of duty). The trial court convicted Bennett and sentenced her to 180 days (175 suspended), a fine, and supervised-visitation conditions.
On appeal Bennett challenged sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the State failed to prove she recklessly created a "substantial risk" to the child’s health or safety. The appellate court reversed and vacated the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Whether evidence proved Bennett (a person in loco parentis/custody) recklessly created a "substantial risk" to the child’s health or safety by permitting/asking Lamb to use military exercises and a three‑swat spanking	The exercises combined with the spanking created a substantial risk to K.B.’s health/safety and thus satisfied R.C. 2919.22(A)	Evidence insufficient: military exercises alone are common/benign, three swats (and minor bruising) without expert proof of heightened risk to this child do not prove a "strong possibility" of harm	Reversed—evidence was insufficient. The State failed to prove the element of "substantial risk"; absent expert evidence tying these measures to a substantial risk for this disabled child, conviction could not stand

State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (legal standard for sufficiency review)
(explains that sufficiency tests whether any rational trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (definition and nature of sufficiency review)
(clarifies sufficiency is a test of adequacy; whether the evidence meets the legal standard)
State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (standard for reviewing denial of Crim.R. 29 motion)
(denial of acquittal reviewed under sufficiency standard)
State v. Sammons, 58 Ohio St.2d 460 (R.C. 2919.22(A) aimed at omissions/neglect)
(recognizes statute targets failures to act that create substantial risk)
State v. Kamel, 12 Ohio St.3d 306 (failure to act can constitute child endangering)
(explains that inexcusable failure to protect a child that results in substantial risk is proscribed)
State v. Suchomski, 58 Ohio St.3d 74 (parental corporal punishment and limits)
(acknowledges parents may use corporal punishment but it is unlawful when it causes prohibited harm)