414 S.W.3d 507
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Infant J.G. (born Mar. 15, 2010) suffered multiple fractures (18 total) discovered June 29, 2010; injuries included multiple healing rib fractures, forearm fractures, tibia fracture and a "bucket-handle" fracture consistent with non-accidental trauma.
- Amanda Eisele (nanny May 12–June 18, 2010) cared for J.G. ~3 days/week; parents and grandmother also had access at times; parents noticed fussiness and a bruise in late May/early June and sought medical care on multiple occasions.
- Medical experts for the State opined the rib fractures were caused by someone wrapping a hand around the infant’s chest and squeezing with force far beyond reasonable care; State experts placed most fractures in a timeframe consistent with Eisele’s employment.
- Police interviewed Eisele after parents identified her to detectives; after waiving Miranda she admitted on recorded portions that she squeezed J.G. multiple times out of frustration and demonstrated the holds; she initially made similar admissions in an unrecorded portion as well.
- Eisele was charged with second-degree assault (recklessly causing serious physical injury). At trial the court admitted her statements, excluded questioning Mother about Lexapro use, instructed the jury focusing on rib fractures as the method, and the jury convicted; Eisele appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Eisele) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of confession | Statement was an admission of party opponent, relevant and incriminating | Statement did not show consciousness of guilt and should be excluded as hearsay/violative of due process | Court admitted statement; found it was a party-opponent admission and not an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency — identity of perpetrator | Medical timing and Eisele’s admissions supported jury finding she caused the injuries | Multiple caretakers had access; some fractures predated Eisele’s care; parental inconsistencies undermine timing | Evidence viewed favorably to verdict was sufficient to support conviction; medical testimony and admissions tied injuries to Eisele |
| Sufficiency — culpable mental state (recklessness) | Expert testimony and Eisele’s admissions that she squeezed hard show conscious disregard of substantial risk | Admissions don’t establish recklessness; state failed to prove conscious disregard beyond negligence | Jury could reasonably find recklessness; sufficiency sustained |
| Cross-examination about Mother’s Lexapro use | Mother’s credibility impeached by cross-exam and other witnesses — no need to probe drug side effects without expert | Lexapro could affect perception/memory and should be allowed for impeachment | Trial court excluded Lexapro questioning absent expert foundation; exclusion not an abuse and, even if error, not prejudicial |
| Jury instruction variance (information charged "breaking his bones" vs. instruction specifying "squeezing and breaking ribs") | Instruction conformed to evidence and crime elements | Instruction improperly narrowed the method and created a variance from the information, prejudicing defense | Variance not material or prejudicial; instruction proper and did not omit an element |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. banc) (verdict-directing instructions must include every element)
- State v. Holmquest, 243 S.W.3d 444 (trial court discretion on evidence admissibility)
- State v. Ecford, 239 S.W.3d 125 (sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Simmons, 233 S.W.3d 235 (admission of party opponent not hearsay)
- State v. Richie, 376 S.W.3d 58 (de novo review of instructional error; prejudice standard)