In addition, defendant testified that the spankings were hard enough to cause a blood clot in her daughter's nose from an earlier nosebleed to dislodge, and that her nose bled for a short time. Moreover, the bruising to her daughter was sufficient to raise the suspicion of her daughter's teacher, the child protective services investigator, the police officer, and the emergency room physician. At the very least, defendant's decision to spank her daughter with enough force to actually cause substantial bruising and dislodge a blood clot from her nose, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the trial court's conclusion that defendant possessed the requisite specific intent to harm her child. In fact, the only evidence presented which indicated that the harm was not specifically intended was defendant's denial. However, the trial court noted that it had problems with defendant's credibility, weakening the probative effect of these denials.
Special deference is given to a trial court's findings when based on witness credibility.
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to disturb the trial court's finding that defendant was not a credible witness. Consequently, we conclude that sufficient evidence was presented supporting a conclusion that defendant possessed the requisite specific intent to harm her child, as required by the statute, and reject her argument to the contrary on appeal. The record reveals, however, that defendant never argued this defense below. Accordingly, we deem this issue forfeited for appellate review.