State v. Davis
407 S.W.3d 721
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Veronica Davis left her three minor children in the care of Robert Nelson, a registered sex offender, after being remanded to the Department of Corrections.
- Juvenile authorities previously warned Davis that Nelson could not have contact with the children while they were in State custody; Davis initially agreed but later allowed contact and ultimately made Nelson their primary caretaker while incarcerated.
- Nelson had prior sex-offender registration based on earlier allegations; after removal from his home, two daughters (C. and K.) disclosed sexual abuse and Nelson was later convicted of sex offenses involving them.
- C. testified she had told Defendant about the abuse before Defendant’s incarceration and that Defendant instructed her not to tell and to lie to authorities.
- Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child for knowingly creating a substantial risk to the children’s health and safety; she appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of the required mental state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Defendant acted "knowingly" under § 568.045.1(1) | State: Circumstantial evidence (Nelson’s status as a registered sex offender, prior warnings, Davis made him primary caretaker, C.'s statement she told Davis, Davis told child to lie) supports an inference Davis knew her conduct created a substantial risk | Davis: Knowledge that Nelson was a registered offender for old charges is insufficient to show she knew abuse was "practically certain"; no proof abuse began or was reported to her before she left children with Nelson | Affirmed: A reasonable factfinder could infer Davis acted knowingly from totality of circumstances; State need only prove practical certainty of risk, not certainty of actual abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burrell, 160 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2005) (standard for proving defendant acted knowingly and sufficiency review)
- State v. Wooden, 388 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. banc 2013) (do not weigh evidence on appeal; accept evidence supporting verdict)
- State v. Manwarren, 139 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (analyzing elements of endangering welfare of a child)
- State v. Todd, 183 S.W.3d 273 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (instructions to a child to lie can support inference of defendant's knowledge)
- State v. Cole, 384 S.W.3d 318 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (clarifies State must prove practical certainty of risk, not proof that actual abuse was inevitable)