STATE v. VINCENT
2016 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 7
Okla. Crim. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 26, 2014, Reba J. Vincent was stopped while driving a vehicle that contained an adult passenger (the child’s father), a one- to two-year-old child in the back seat, and two dogs.
- Officers observed slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol; Vincent’s breath test registered .17.
- Vincent was charged with Count 1: Child Neglect (felony), Count 2: DUI Aggravated (misdemeanor), Count 3: Transporting Open Container (misdemeanor).
- The magistrate sustained Vincent’s demurrer to evidence on Child Neglect, finding no proof she was a parent, guardian, or person with custody/control of the child.
- The district court affirmed; the State appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals seeking reversal and alternate bind-overs for Child Abuse or Child Endangerment.
- The OCCA heard the appeal on the accelerated docket and reversed, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence at preliminary hearing established probable cause that Vincent committed Child Neglect under 21 O.S.Supp.2014 § 843.5(C) | State: Vincent, as the intoxicated driver in control of the vehicle with a child aboard, was an “other person” responsible for the child and thus culpable for neglect | Vincent: No proof she was parent/guardian/person having custody or control of the child; only the passenger was shown to be the father | Held: Reversed. Sufficient probable cause that Vincent committed Child Neglect; parental status not required under current statute |
| Whether the evidence supported bind-over for Child Endangerment under 21 O.S.2011 § 852.1 | State: Driver transporting a child while intoxicated falls squarely within the statute’s prohibitions | Vincent: Same custody/control argument — lack of relationship to child defeats charge | Held: Reversed. As the intoxicated driver, Vincent could be charged with Child Endangerment |
| Whether Child Abuse could be charged given statutory language | State: Current § 843.5(A) permits liability by “any parent or other person” who willfully harms or fails to protect a child | Vincent: Relationship absence defeats application | Held: Reversed. Vincent fits category of “other person” and probable cause exists for Child Abuse |
| Whether prior OCCA decisions requiring proof of responsibility for child (Townsend, Cox) control here | State: Statutory amendments changed scope; prior holdings are superseded | Vincent: Relied on Townsend/Cox for requirement of custodial relationship | Held: The court overruled Townsend and Cox to the extent inconsistent; current statutes govern and permit liability without parental status |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. State, 144 P.3d 170 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (discussed; prior requirement that neglect defendants be persons responsible for child's health, safety, or welfare)
- Cox v. State, 152 P.3d 244 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (discussed; similar prior rule for child sexual abuse statute)
- State v. Weese, 625 P.2d 118 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981) (standard of review for magistrate's probable cause determination)
- Oxley v. State, 941 P.2d 520 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997) (interpretation of “person having custody or control” to include those standing in loco parentis and commonly understood control)