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 case involves the conviction of Defendant Ema Ferran-Sandoval for permitting the child abuse of a four-year-old child. The child lived with the Defendant's daughter and her girlfriend in the Defendant's home. The abuse was severe, with the child suffering from multiple injuries, malnourishment, and broken bones, attributed to the Defendant's daughter. Despite being aware of the abuse, the Defendant did not report it or seek medical attention for the child. Instead, she advised the girlfriend to avoid giving names when seeking medical help for the child (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury instruction was incomplete and ambiguous due to the omission of the terms “parent,” “guardian,” and “custodian” in defining what it means to “accept responsibility” for a child. Contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction because the State failed to prove she accepted responsibility for the child's welfare (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the Legislature intentionally did not include the terms “parent,” “guardian,” or “custodian” in the child abuse statute, and thus, accepting responsibility for the welfare of a child is not an element of permitting child abuse. Argued that the sufficiency of the evidence should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, excluding the nonessential element of accepting responsibility (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the omission of the terms “parent,” “guardian,” and “custodian” in the jury instruction constituted fundamental error.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the Defendant's conviction for permitting child abuse.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Megan P. Duffy concurring, held that the Legislature's omission of the terms “parent,” “guardian,” or “custodian” from the child abuse statute was intentional. The Court found that accepting responsibility for a child's welfare is not a required element for permitting child abuse. It declined to address the Defendant's argument regarding the sufficiency of evidence on the grounds that it pertained to a nonessential element of the crime. The Court also noted that the jury instruction, although it added an additional element not present in the statute, did not constitute fundamental error because it did not leave the Court unsure whether the conviction was based on an essential element of the crime. Judge Duffy concurred in the result but disagreed with the majority's broader holding regarding the jury instruction, arguing that the relationship requirement should not be disregarded and that the issue could have been resolved on narrower grounds (paras 9-35).