Washington v. State

2014 Ark. App. 122
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedFebruary 19, 2014
DocketCR-13-225
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ark. App. 122 (Washington v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Washington v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 122 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 122

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-13-225

Opinion Delivered February 19, 2014

SHAUN LAMOND WASHINGTON APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND DIVISION V. [NO. CR2012-857]

HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER STATE OF ARKANSAS CHARLES PIAZZA, JUDGE APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED

BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge

A Pulaski County jury found appellant Shaun Lamond Washington guilty of first-

degree battery of his girlfriend’s infant daughter M.D. (DOB: 01-07-2012), and he was

sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Washington argues that the trial court abused its

discretion in denying his request to instruct the jury on third-degree battery. Because there

was some evidence to support such instruction, we reverse and remand.

The evidence showed that on February 17, 2012, around 9:30 p.m., Shayla Dowd left

M.D., along with her three-year-old son X.H., with Washington so that she could celebrate

her birthday with a friend. Around noon on the following day, Dowd had not returned. Patsy

Moore, Dowd’s mother, arrived at Dowd’s apartment to visit her grandchildren and

discovered that M.D. was barely breathing. Washington explained that, just prior to Moore’s

arrival, M.D. had vomited after being fed and then she suddenly became limp. Moore told Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 122

Washington to call 911. On the way to Arkansas Children’s Hospital (ACH), a paramedic

asked Washington about a bruise on M.D.’s forehead. Washington claimed that X.H. might

have hit the baby with a toy truck the previous night.

Dr. Maria Theresa Esqueveil, a pediatrician at ACH, testified that M.D. displayed

symptoms of having had a seizure, and x-rays later revealed that she had a fractured skull and

intracranial bleeding. Dr. Esqueveil testified that it was not a simple linear fracture, but rather

was split open, leaving a gap in the baby’s head. M.D. also had extensive retinal

hemorrhaging. Moreover, M.D. had three small bruises above her right eyebrow, a bruise

under her left eye, bruises on her left knee and thigh, bruises on the rims of both ears and

back part of her left ear, and two bruises on her back. In addition, both of M.D.’s hands were

swollen, and she had bruises on the backs of her hands. There was a small laceration on

M.D.’s lip, and she had bruising under her tongue. Dr. Esqueveil testified that the only

explanation Washington gave her for M.D.’s fractured skull was that X.H. might have struck

the baby on the head with his toy truck.

There was evidence that, when interviewed by an investigator with the Arkansas State

Police, Washington offered innocent explanations for all the bruises and injuries sustained by

M.D. and stated that her skull was possibly fractured by X.H.’s hitting her with a toy truck

he had been throwing into the air. Washington admitted cutting M.D.’s lip and possibly

bruising her back and hands in connection with his efforts to resuscitate her.

The jury heard evidence that Washington subsequently told detectives with the Little

Rock Police Department that M.D. had vomited after being fed, her eyes had rolled back into

2 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 122

her head, and, when her body suddenly stiffened in his arms, she slipped out of his hands and

hit her head on the floor. Washington explained that he had been sitting on the bed cleaning

vomit off the baby when he dropped her from a height of about four feet. Washington stated

that he had accidentally backhanded M.D. when he rolled over in bed but later conceded that

he might have been frustrated with her crying while he was trying to sleep. Washington also

told detectives that the bruises on M.D.’s leg were likely the result of his playfully “tugging”

and “tapping” on her thigh “maybe twenty-five times.”

In her testimony, Dowd offered innocent explanations for various bruises on M.D.’s

body that she claimed were present before February 17, 2012. Dowd insisted that she would

not still be with Washington if she believed that he had purposely hurt her baby.

Washington testified that he had been with M.D. since she was born.1 Washington

stated that, around noon on February 18, 2012, M.D. vomited after she was fed. He testified

that, while cleaning up the vomit, M.D.’s head was cupped in his hand and her body was

resting on his left leg. According to Washington, as he was turning to the side of the bed,

M.D. suddenly jerked causing her to slip out of his arms. Washington testified that M.D. fell

from the edge of the mattress to the floor and that he did not realize that M.D.’s skull had

been fractured by the fall. He claimed that he did not initially admit to dropping M.D.

because he did not want Dowd’s family to think that he could not care for a newborn.

Washington testified that he did not intentionally backhand, drop, or otherwise hit M.D.

Dr. John Gilbert Galaznik, a pediatrician, testified for the defense that dropping an

1 M.D. is not Washington’s biological child.

3 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 122

infant on her head from a height of two to three feet could result in a fractured skull and that

a fall from a height of three to four feet would be “more than adequate” to cause skull

fracturing, subdural bleeding, retinal hemorrhages, and seizures. In its case in chief, the State

had offered evidence to the contrary. In her direct examination, Dr. Esqueveil testified that

it was “very unlikely” that M.D.’s head injury could have been caused by a single fall from

a sitting position. She described M.D.’s injuries as “abusive head trauma.” Also, Dr. Leann

Linam, a pediatric radiologist at ACH, testified that a fracture as widely separated as M.D.’s

had to have resulted from a significant, high-impact force, such as from a motor-vehicle

accident or a fall from a second-story window.

Washington was charged with and found guilty of first-degree battery under Ark. Code

Ann. § 5-13-201(a)(9) (Supp. 2011), which provides that a person commits first-degree

battery when he knowingly causes serious physical injury to any person four years of age or

younger under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. A

person acts “knowingly” with respect to a result of the person’s conduct when he is aware

that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause the result. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(2)

(Repl. 2006). First-degree battery under section 5-13-201(a)(9) is a Class Y felony, Ark. Code

Ann. § 5-13-201(c)(2), punishable by imprisonment of not less than ten and not more than

forty years, or life. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(1) (Repl. 2006).

The trial court refused Washington’s request for an instruction on third-degree battery

under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-203(a)(2) (Repl. 2006), which provides that a person commits

third-degree battery when he recklessly causes physical injury to another person. A person acts

4 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 122

“recklessly” with respect to attendant circumstances or a result of his conduct when the

person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the attendant

circumstances exist or the result will occur. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(3)(A). The risk must

be of a nature and degree that disregard of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the

standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. Ark. Code

Ann. § 5-2-202(3)(B).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Davis v. State
242 S.W.3d 630 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2006)
Reed v. State
383 S.W.3d 881 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ark. App. 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-state-arkctapp-2014.