State v. Gaver
2016 Ohio 7055
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- March 9, 2014: 34‑month‑old A.G., who had preexisting developmental delays and prior white‑matter brain injury, became lethargic and experienced seizure‑like activity while in appellant Richard Gaver’s care; imaging later showed a subdural hematoma and bilateral multilayer retinal hemorrhages.
- Akron Children’s CARE team diagnosed injuries consistent with traumatic non‑accidental head injury (violent rotational/whiplash mechanism) and indicated the injuries were not plausibly caused by the reported short fall or bump.
- Gaver initially reported that A.G. collapsed in the kitchen; later he told investigators a previously undisclosed incident in which A.G. bumped his head on a bunkbed ladder.
- Indictment charged two counts of child endangering: Count I (R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)) – abuse causing serious physical harm (felony 2); Count II (R.C. 2919.22(A)) – creating a substantial risk by violating duty of care resulting in serious physical harm (felony 3).
- Pretrial Daubert motion sought to exclude CARE center medical expert Dr. Daryl Steiner’s testimony that the injuries resulted from abusive head trauma; Daubert hearing held and the trial court admitted Steiner’s testimony.
- Jury acquitted Gaver on Count I (abuse) but convicted on Count II (duty‑violation endangering resulting in serious physical harm). Court sentenced Gaver to community control (36 months) with six months local incarceration; Gaver appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert medical opinion (Daubert gatekeeping) | State: Dr. Steiner’s methods/principles are reliable and admissible to show non‑accidental traumatic brain and retinal hemorrhages. | Gaver: Steiner’s shaken‑baby/abusive‑head‑trauma opinions are scientifically unreliable and should be excluded under Daubert; Daubert hearing unduly limited cross‑examination. | Court: No abuse of discretion—trial court properly focused on principles/methods under Evid.R. 702/Daubert, limited pretrial cross‑examination reasonably, and Steiner’s opinions were admissible. |
| Weight and sufficiency of evidence for conviction under R.C. 2919.22(A) (duty‑violation endangering) | State: Medical evidence and timeline support inference that A.G. suffered violent inflicted trauma while in Gaver’s sole care; Gaver recklessly violated duty to protect, causing serious physical harm. | Gaver: State failed to prove breach of duty or that injuries were not accidental; defense expert offered alternative causes. | Court: Evidence was sufficient and not against manifest weight; jury reasonably credited state experts, convicted on duty‑violation theory though acquitted of direct abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial judge must gatekeep to ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for admitting expert testimony)
- State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 1998) (focus on expert’s principles and methods in reliability inquiry)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standards for manifest‑weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)