282 P.3d 24
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant, a member of the Followers of Christ Church, refuses modern medical treatment in favor of faith healing.
- Daughter A, about 15 months old, developed neck swelling and cold symptoms; family and church members prayed and laid hands, using olive oil, and gave water with wine when she was sick.
- A died from bacterial pneumonia and sepsis, with autopsy showing weight/height in the lowest fifth percentile and a cystic hygroma affecting defense against pneumonia.
- Defendant and wife were indicted; wife acquitted on both charges; defendant acquitted of manslaughter but convicted of second-degree criminal mistreatment.
- Defendant argued his failure to seek medical care was rooted in religion, requiring knowledge-based intent under the statute; he sought a jury instruction reflecting a knowledge standard and moved for arrest of judgment.
- Court concluded the proposed instruction was not a correct statement of law, and a motion in arrest of judgment was not an appropriate vehicle for an as-applied constitutional challenge; the conviction was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge standard applies to criminal mistreatment second degree | Meltebeke suggests knowledge is required when religion is involved. | State must prove knowledge that death would occur from withholding care. | Knowledge standard not required; statute focuses on withholding care, not result. |
| Whether denial of a knowledge-based jury instruction was error | Proposed instruction correctly stated law under the as-applied challenge. | Instruction was correct statement of law protecting religious practice. | Instruction not a correct statement of law; trial court did not err. |
| Whether a motion in arrest of judgment was proper for an as-applied challenge | Arrest of judgment should permit as-applied constitutional challenges. | Motion in arrest of judgment appropriate vehicle for such challenges. | Not proper; arrest of judgment constrained to face-of-indictment grounds. |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to give a jury concurrence instruction | Concurrence instruction required for convicting defendant. | Concurrence instruction should have been given. | Plain error claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 322 Or 132 (1995) (requires knowledge that conduct has an effect forbidden by rule)
- State v. Reigard, 243 Or App 442 (2011) (motion in arrest of judgment is limited to facial grounds)
- State v. McKenzie, 307 Or 554 (1989) (demurrers/arrests relate to facial sufficiency)
- State v. Cervantes, 232 Or App 567 (2009) (as-applied challenges not raised on face of indictment)
- State v. Chakerian, 325 Or 370 (1997) (pretrial challenges tied to indictment language)
- State v. Branch, 208 Or App 286 (2006) (instruction refusal reviewed for correctness of law)
- State v. Barnes, 329 Or 327 (1999) (propriety of jury instructions evaluated against law)