Opinion ID: 2149275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conviction Contrary to Law

Text: The appellants' argue essentially that the verdicts were contrary to law because their acts do not constitute a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct and therefore do not meet the definition of recklessness. [2] There is no merit to this claim. A conviction for reckless homicide requires the State to prove that the Halls recklessly killed another human being. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-5 (Burns 1985 Repl.). A person engages in conduct recklessly if he engages in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2 (Burns 1985 Repl.). The evidence recited above clearly shows that the jury's verdict was not contrary to law. A verdict is contrary to law only when there is an absence of evidence on an essential element of the crime charged or when the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one reasonable conclusion and the trier of fact reached an opposite conclusion. Ballard v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 328; Early v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1071. Despite the appellants' admitted awareness that their son was ill and that his condition progressively deteriorated, they did not seek medical care for him. The Halls, arguing by analogy to the child neglect statute, maintain that their reckless conduct was brought within the realm of acceptable standards of conduct by their exercise of prayer in lieu of medical care. The child neglect statute does permit a caretaker who deprives a dependent of medical care to be exempted from criminal responsibility if the caretaker in the legitimate practice of his religious belief, provided treatment by spiritual means through prayer, in lieu of medical care, to his dependent. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4 (Burns 1985 Repl.). However, reckless homicide does not have a statutory defense excusing responsibility for a death which resulted from what our legal system has defined to be reckless acts, regardless if these acts were conducted pursuant to religious beliefs or otherwise. The legislature has distinguished between child neglect which results in serious bodily injury [3] and neglect which results in the child's death. Prayer is not permitted as a defense when a caretaker engages in omissive conduct which results in the child's death.