OPINION
Thе jury convicted Appellant of three counts of the offense of endangering a child and assessed her punishment at confinement for two years for each conviction. However, the jury recommended that the trial court suspend the imposition of Appellant’s sentence. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation, suspended the imposition of the sentence and рlaced Appellant on community supervision for five years. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support each of her three convictions. We affirm.
I. The Charged Offenses
The grand jury returned a three-count indictment against Appellant for the offenses of endangering a child younger than fifteen years of age, namely J.H., B.B., and B.H., when Appellant “intentionаlly, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence” placed her children in “imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment,” when she left them in filthy living conditions that exposed them to “insect bites, illness, and disease.” Appellant pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial before a jury.
A person commits the offense of child endangerment if she “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child younger than 15 years in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.041(c) (West 2011).
II. Evidence at Trial
Appellant is the mother of three children: J.H., B.B., and B.H. Appellant and her children lived in an approximately 1,200-square foot home with her mother, her brother, her brother’s wife, and her brother’s two children. Many animals, including birds, gerbils, three dogs and a clowder of cats, also lived in the house.
A. J.H., an eight-month-old child, was admitted to the hospital for a high fever, a rash on his leg, and insect bites all over his body.
At some point, Appellant noticed that J.H. had a fever. Only after she had given J.H. Tylenol and Advil for three days did she take him to the emergency room at the hоspital. A nurse practitioner, Ron Bacani, examined J.H. and admitted J.H. to the hospital because J.H. had a temperature of 105.3 degrees and had an infection that could progress into septicemia or blood poisoning from bacteria, if not promptly treated. He diagnosed J.H. with a fever and a skin infection, cellulitis, caused by insect bites. Bacani explained that the insect bitеs that covered J.H.’s body led to an infection and caused his high fever. He also testified that cockroaches crawled out of the diaper bag that Appellant brought with her to the hospital.
Bacani notified a pediatric doctor. J.H. received antibiotics and remained in the hospital for three days. Because J.H.’s physical condition and ill health alarmed Bacani, he сalled Child Protective Services. CPS notified the Odessa Police Department.
B. Police observed the children’s physical conditions and investigated their living conditions.
Caleb Lacey, an officer with the Odessa Police Department, arrived at the hospital and noticed that J.H. had insect bites all over his arms, legs, and head and that he had a large rash on his right leg. Officer Lacey said that J.H. had bеen crying and was “obviously in some sort of distress.” Brad Cline, a detective with the Odessa Police Department, went to Appellant’s home to do a welfare check on Appellant’s other two children. When Detective Cline arrived at Appellant’s home, he noticed several cats coming out the window near the door, saw big and little cats in the house, and smelled “a really foul odor coming out of the house.” Once he entered the home, Detective Cline noticed cat feces everywhere on the floor of the living room. Detective Cline explained that the unsanitary conditions were so severe that Appellant had to have known of the large amount of feces and insects in the home. The house also contained several cages for рet birds and rodents. Detective Cline saw that both living and dead insects covered the floors of the house. Piles of clothes and trash littered the living room. Dirty dishes, trash, and insects were strewn throughout the kitchen. He also saw beer cans and trash that littered the floor. Trash, dead and living insects, and other items were on the floor in every part of the house. In addition, Detective Cline observed that mold сovered the interior of a nonworking refrigerator. When Detective Cline went into the bedroom where Appellant, her mother, and Appellant’s three children slept, he found B.B. and B.H. asleep on separate beds. J.H. slept in a “Pack ’n Play” near a small, nonworking refrigerator. There was a microwave on top of the refrigerator near J.H.’s bed, and the refrigerator had mold and insеcts inside it.
Detective Cline testified that the floor of J.H.’s bed literally looked like it was moving and that he could not see the bottom of the “Pack ⅛ Play” because there were so many insects in it. He also noticed that a pacifier, a teething ring, and a baby bottle with milk were in the bed with the living and dead insects.
B.B. and B.H. were both asleep in the shared bedroom when Detective Cline entered and inspected it; he woke both children to make sure that they were okay. Although not as many as J.H., B.B. and B.H. both had insect bites on their bodies.
Detective Cline testified that He met Appellant and had a brief conversation with her at the hospital. Appellant admitted that there was ah insect problem at' the house because of cats. Detective Cline also testified that he learned from medical personnel that J.H. had developed scabies.
C. Nurse, practitioner Bacará explained the health risks to the children because of their living conditions.
Bacani explained how the condition of the home presented a danger to Appellant’s children. He explained that the insect bites that covered J.H.’s body led to an infection and caused his high fever. He further outlined how mold infestations can lead to respiratory issues and insect bites can lead to severe infections like the one that afflicted J.H. He also explained that exposure to fecal matter can cause respiratory problems and that the ingestion of fecal matter .can lead to infeсtion.
D. Appellant testified in her own defense. '
During her testimony, Appellant repeatedly denied any knowledge that there were insects near J.H.’s bed. She claimed that she did not know the full extent of the insect infestation near J.H.’s bed because she worked night shifts and the insects were not as present when she was home in the daylight. Appellant -said that she did not see inseet bites on J.H., but she then said that she thought the bites- were mosquito bites. However, she also admitted during her testimony that she was aware of the insects by J.H.’s bed and used insect spray to. try to get rid of them.
Appellant also conceded that she knew that the house was filthy and that feces littered the house, but she claimed she did her best to keep it clean. She had asked her mother and. brother to get rid of the animals and remove the feces.from the house, but they refused to do sо.. She claimed not to know that exposure to fecal matter could harm children and later denied seeing the fecal matter'that she previously had acknowledged.
Appellant also' claimed that she did not notice the. mold in the refrigerators even though she had lived in the house her entire life.' She explained that her brother put a lock on one refrigerator to keep her and her children from getting food even though Appellant had paid for the food and was the only one that paid any bills at the home. She also testified that, when she tried to get food from the refrigerator for her children, her brother would beat her.
III. Standard of Review'
The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is whether any rational jury could have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
IV. Analysis
Appellant asserts that the State adduced insufficient evidence to convict her of the offenses of endangering her children. A person commits the offense of child endangerment if she “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child younger than 15 years in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.” Penal § 22.041(c). The offense does not require proof that the defendant intended to put the child in imminent danger or cause harm. Contreras v. State,
A. The State adduced sufficient evidence that Appellant endangered.J.H.
Appellant admitted that she knew there were insects by J.H.’s “Pack ⅛ Play” where he slept and that he had been bitten; she had sprayed bug spray and'had applied lotion to J;H.’s insect bites and to his rash. The Penal Code does' not define “physical impairment,” but Texas Courts have interpreted “impairment” to include the diminished function of a bodily organ. See Camarillo v. State,
Appellant knowingly or recklessly allowed her eight-month-old child, J.H., to sleep in an insect-infested bed that ultimately led to his skin infection and high fever, which required emergency medical treatment and three days of hospitalization. Bacani explained that the insect bites had caused J.H.’s high fever and cellulitis and that his. physical condition .was impaired to such- a degree that he-required hospitalization to treat the fevеr and rash. In addition,, law enforcement officers indicated that J.H. cried and screamed when he was in the hospital. Any physical pain, however minor, will suffice to establish bodily injury. See Laster v. State,
B. The State also adduced sufficient evidence that Appellant endangered B.B. and B.H.
Appellant asserts that she did not endanger B.B. and B.H. and points out that they did not suffer any of the adverse health conditions that J.H. suffered. Appellant argues that B.B. and B.H. were not in immediate or imminent danger of bodily injury. Appellant’s brief acknowledges that, “[wjhile the potential and/or future danger may have ultimately come to fruition as to [J.H.], it never came to fruition with [B.B.] or [B.H.].” We note that the Texas legislature intended to protect vulnerable children when it enacted Section 22.041. Rey v. State,
The Texas Penal Code broadly defines “bodily injury” as “physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.” Penal § 1.07(a)(8). Any physical pain, however minor, will suffice to establish bodily injury. See Laster,
As fan as “imminent danger” is concerned, the Texas Penal Code does not define “imminent,” but the Court of Criminal Appeals has defined that term to mean “ready to take place, near at hand, impending, hanging threateningly over one’s head, menacingly near.” Devine,
Appellant asserts that any danger to B.B. and B.H. from mold, animal feces, аnd insects was a potential danger, not an imminent or actual- danger, because neither B.B. nor B.H. had been diagnosed with any illness or disease. A measure of the imminence of a danger is the nature of
Appellant asserts that her case is similar to the facts in Garcia and Millslagle. See Garcia,
The same is true regarding Moody v. State, No. 01-03-00685-CR,
Appellant’s case, however, differs from Moody because here the State did present evidence linking the extensive presence of animal feces, mold, and insеcts in the home to disease and illness suffered by J.H. and to which his siblings were also exposed. One does not have to wonder what happened to J.H. because of exposure to Appellant’s home. The jury was given the answer to that question by expert medical testimony. The condition of the home, the presence of multiple animals, and the proximity of B.B. and B.H.’s beds to the multiplicity of inseсts found in J.H.’s bed placed the danger “menacingly near” to them with illness and disease “ready to take place.”
Detective Cline described the room where the children stayed: there were dead and living insects everywhere, including in all three children’s beds; soiled diapers on the floor; a broken refrigerator with mold and insects in it; and stains near the children’s beds that Detective Cline did not test. He also noted that numerous cats and dogs roamed freely and that their feces were everywhere. He further noted that trash, soiled clothing, empty food containers, beer cans, and other items lay strewn throughout the house; he also observed that dirty dishes littered the kitchen sink and that similar “filthy” conditions were present in the kitchen and bathroom. Detective Cline said he would not touch various items in the room where J.H., B.B., and B.H. lived and slept. He also explained that, after he left the house, he sought immediate medical attention to ensure that he had not been exposed to anything.
Appellant’s case is more similar to Harrist v. State, where this court held that sufficient evidence existed to support a conviction for child endangerment. No. 11-01-00093-CR,
Here, Appellant allowed her three children to live in a home that a police officer found so dangerous he would not touch items in the house and ’ sought medical attention aftеr he conducted an investigation inside the house. Appellant said that her house was, “filthy” because of the presence of the cats and dogs and that it was a “nightmare” for her and her children.
The threat posed by living conditions that we have described caused one child to be hospitalized with a fever of over 105 degrees, scabies, and cellulitis from insect bites. Bacani explained how the insect bites and the living conditions led to J.H.’s illnesses. B.B. and B.H. also showed signs of insect bites, and they lived in the same house and slept in the same room arid were exposed to the same risks that caused J.H.’s condition and hospitalization. Appellant allowed the condition of the home to manifest an imminent threat because the insects that had bitten the children had already sickened J.H.
After a review of the record, we hold that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that B.B, and B.H. suffered physical discomfort and pain from the insect bites found on their bodies and that the conditions in the room that they slept in and the house that they lived in constituted an immediate danger for them to contract disease and constituted an imminent danger to their physical and mental health. We overrule Appellant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidenee issue.
V. This Court’s Ruling
We affirm the judgments of the trial court.