AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Daniel Consaul, was charged with child abuse resulting in great bodily harm after his ten-week-old nephew, Jack Consaul, suffered severe brain injuries while under his care. The Defendant babysat Jack on the night of the incident. Initially, Defendant claimed Jack was found rigid and vomiting in his crib. Later, he admitted to swaddling Jack tightly and placing him face down on a pillow in the crib out of frustration. Medical professionals initially suspected septic shock but later concluded Jack's injuries were consistent with suffocation, leading to a child abuse investigation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of intentional or negligent causation of the victim's brain injuries, objected to expert witnesses' testimonies as impermissible comments on causation and Defendant's credibility, challenged the denial of separate jury instructions for negligent and intentional child abuse, and contested the sentencing determination and SVO designation.
• Appellee (State): Contended that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction for both negligent and intentional child abuse, defended the expert testimonies as appropriate, and supported the trial court's decisions on jury instructions, sentencing, and SVO designation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for negligent and intentional child abuse.
• Whether expert witnesses' testimonies improperly influenced the jury by commenting on causation and the Defendant's credibility.
• Whether the trial court erred in providing a single jury instruction for both negligent and intentional child abuse.
• Whether the trial court erred in its sentencing decision and designation of the offense as a Serious Violent Offense (SVO).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, order, and commitment convicting the Defendant of child abuse, sentencing him to eighteen years imprisonment, and designating the offense as an SVO.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (with JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring), the court found substantial evidence supported the conviction for both negligent and intentional child abuse. Expert testimonies by Dr. Coleman and Dr. Johnson were deemed not to have risen to the level of fundamental error despite challenges to their appropriateness. The court upheld the single jury instruction and general verdict form, finding no violation of the Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict. The sentencing and SVO designation were also upheld, with the court noting the trial court's findings were specific enough to meet standards for designating the crime as an SVO based on the nature of the offense and resulting harm.