STATE v. VINCENT
2016 OK CR 7
Okla. Crim. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 26, 2014, Reba J. Vincent was stopped while driving a vehicle containing an adult passenger, a 1–2 year old child, and two dogs; officers noted slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, alcohol odor, and Vincent later registered .17 on a breathalyzer.
- Vincent was charged with Child Neglect (felony), Aggravated DUI (misdemeanor), and Transporting an Open Container (misdemeanor).
- The magistrate sustained Vincent’s demurrer to the evidence as to Child Neglect, finding no proof Vincent was a parent, guardian, or person having custody/control of the child; the State appealed.
- The district court affirmed the magistrate; the State appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals under 22 O.S. § 1089.7.
- The central factual dispute: whether Vincent’s status as the intoxicated driver (though not the child’s parent) provided probable cause for child-related offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State presented probable cause Vincent committed Child Neglect | Sufficient evidence that an intoxicated person in control of a vehicle with a child willfully neglected the child under § 843.5(C) | No proof Vincent was parent/guardian or person responsible for the child | Reversed: probable cause existed; statute applies to “other person” in control of vehicle with a child |
| Whether alternative offenses (Child Abuse/Child Endangerment) were supported | Even if neglect fails, facts support Child Abuse or Child Endangerment because driver transported child while intoxicated | Lack of relationship to child defeats those charges | Held that Child Endangerment and Child Abuse can apply to any person conveying a child while intoxicated; probable cause supported |
| Whether presence of child’s father in vehicle negates Vincent’s responsibility | State: father’s presence does not absolve driver’s responsibility or control | Defendant: only person with relationship was the father, so Vincent lacked requisite status | Court: driver’s physical control of vehicle constitutes sufficient control/responsibility irrespective of parent’s presence |
| Whether prior cases (Townsend, Cox) limit application of child statutes to parents/guardians | State: statutory amendments changed scope; prior holdings are outdated | Defense relied on Townsend/Cox to require parental/guardian relationship | Court overruled Townsend and Cox to the extent inconsistent and applied current statutory language to reach probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. State, 144 P.3d 170 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (previously held neglect required person responsible for child’s health/safety; court discusses statutory scope)
- Cox v. State, 152 P.3d 244 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (applied similar requirement in context of child sexual abuse statutes)
- State v. Weese, 625 P.2d 118 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981) (standard of review for magistrate’s probable cause rulings at preliminary hearing)
- Oxley v. State, 941 P.2d 520 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997) (construction of “person having custody or control” to include in loco parentis and commonly understood control)