Opinion ID: 891582
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Conviction for Endangering the Boys

Text: {32} In order to prove child endangerment in this case, the State was required to show that the conditions created a substantial and foreseeable risk that Juan and Leo would suffer serious injuries from the otherwise lawful conditions in Defendant's home. We begin our risk analysis by reviewing the gravity of the dangers created by the home environment to determine whether these dangers created a substantial and foreseeable risk of serious injury. {33} That this was a filthy house is obvious, evidenced by the dirty laundry, dirty dishes, dirty diapers, and mouse droppings throughout the home. The home also contained certain dangerous features, such as the damaged ceiling, the broken glass in the yard, the nail-ridden debris from the collapsed shed, the gap in the floor boards on the front porch, and household chemicals within reach of the children. Sheriff's Deputy Lisa Delorm testified that some of the dresser drawers were open and broken, and that the openings were easily accessible to the children who could get inside and get stuck. She also noted that the closets were open and had piles of items stacked inside that could fall on and injure a child. In the bathroom, witnesses observed that the shower and toilet were covered in mold. A razor was accessible to the children. The most salient sanitary issue in the home was the presence of rodent droppings throughout, including in the cabinets where dishes and food were stored and on the dishes. {34} In addition, the home had no hot water available from the tap because the propane which fueled the water heater was empty and disconnected. Clearly, a lack of hot water makes it difficult to sterilize dishes. Although hot water was not available at the faucet, the record indicates that the stove was electric and presumptively capable of boiling water for washing, cooking, and even bathing. Had the children's mother testified that the family was unable to heat water on the stove, or that the family functioned for months without any ability to heat water, then in light of the other conditions, this aspect of the home would have presented a serious threat to the children's health. The record, however, reveals no such testimony. {35} It is apparent that these conditions evidence poverty, filth, and neglect, and that they create some degree of risk, particularly for young children. Jensen, 2006-NMSC-045, ¶ 3, 140 N.M. 416, 143 P.3d 178 ([A] child's susceptibility to harm is a factor a jury might consider when determining whether a defendant has committed child abuse....). But the question before us is whether these conditions created a substantial and foreseeable threat of serious injury. As we have said, not every risk of injury rises to the level of felony child endangerment. The State was required to establish that the risks arising from this home environment were far greater than those in the average home. {36} The dangerous aspects identified by the State in Defendant's home included broken glass, nails, dirty diapers, household chemicals, trash, and mold. Under certain circumstances supported by substantial evidence, similar conditions could conceivably present the kind of risk of serious injury that falls within the statute. Cf. State v. Deskins, 152 Ariz. 209, 731 P.2d 104, 105-06 (Ct.App. 1986) ([T]he jury heard evidence of unsanitary conditions, including a leaking portable toilet and that the children slept in close proximity to animals which appeared to be diseased and scrap metal automobile parts, tin cans and other discarded items. The children, who were kept barefoot, were not protected from scrap lumber with protruding nails and were exposed to the animal feces.... The jury heard evidence that the parents were given one week in which to make changes which were indicated by the caseworker, but failed or refused to do so.  (Emphasis added.)). For example, the length of time that these conditions are allowed to exist and the amount of supervision in the home are certainly factors that can increase or mitigate the degree of risk involved. Unfortunately, although the State offered some testimony on these factors, the record is largely silent in this regard. {37} The problem with the present case and this record is the lack of any specific evidence connecting these conditions to a substantial and foreseeable risk of harm. Any dirty house can lead to illness or injury, but the critical difference that distinguishes a filthy house from conditions that are criminal is whether those conditions present a truly consequential and foreseeable threat of harm to children. The risk of a cut or a bruise is not the same as the risk of a virulent disease. Our endangerment jurisprudence, as illustrated by Jensen, indicates that most of the hazards present in Defendant's home do not present the sort of serious risk anticipated by our Legislature, at least in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. {38} Of course, the risk of disease and parasites presents a potentially more serious threat of harm. The State presented several witnesses to testify about the extent of the rodent infestation and the prevalence of rodent droppings throughout the home. Although mice are commonly associated with disease, not every exposure to rodents will result in serious illness. Therefore, the presence of mice in a home is not enough on its own to conclude that the children are at risk of contracting a serious illness. {39} Similar to Jensen, the State failed to present any specific evidence to establish a substantial and foreseeable risk that the children would suffer serious disease as a result of being present in Defendant's home. The State offered no expert testimony. Instead, the State merely cross-examined Defendant's own expert, Dr. Sparing, by asking, Would you agree that having an infestation of mice in a home is not conducive to good health? Dr. Sparing responded by acknowledging that mice can carry different diseases and parasites, including hantavirus and plague. But Dr. Sparing was never asked to address the specific risk that the children would contract a serious illness from this particular environment. {40} The State could have met its burden in this case. The risk of serious disease or illness is a matter of science and can be established with empirical and scientific evidence. To determine the presence of disease or parasites, the State could have subjected the rodent droppings to laboratory testing. See State v. Greene, 168 Ariz. 104, 811 P.2d 356, 358-59 (Ct.App.1991) (stating that neither the feces nor the spoiled food had been tested for the presence of disease or parasites). The State could have presented testimony from a health professional explaining the scientific nexus and degree of likelihood regarding these conditions and specific diseases or other significant threats to the welfare of children. The entire house could have been environmentally analyzed for the presence of unusual health risks. The State could have presented statistical information from the Department of Health or the Centers for Disease Control on the presence and incidence of hantavirus and plague in or near Tularosa. As we indicated in Jensen, our juries deserve more evidentiary assistance, particularly when the risks are based on matters of science, to help them decide whether the threat of serious illness is significantly greater in the particular home in question. {41} Importantly, the State had been aware of this family even before the investigation into Shelby's death; Defendant had two prior encounters with the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD). The first encounter occurred in 2001 when a social worker visited the family's prior home in Carrizozo. Although the social worker never went inside the home, she reported that a visual inspection revealed unsanitary conditions and safety issues. It is unclear from the record whether Defendant and his family actually resided in the home at that time, and the record does not indicate that further actions were taken by CYFD after that visit. The second visit occurred only one month before Shelby died, when police officers responded to a CYFD call from Defendant's cousin and went to the home to perform a welfare check on Shelby. The police left without taking any action, and the record does not reflect any further actions by CYFD between the September 7, 2003 visit and Shelby's death on October 2, 2003. {42} The Court of Appeals concluded that these visits placed Defendant on notice that the conditions in his home were perilous. Chavez, 2008-NMCA-126, ¶ 10, 145 N.M. 11, 193 P.3d 558. We agree that the CYFD visits provide an inference that Defendant should have known, at the very least, that he needed to pay attention to conditions in his home. However, the lack of any CYFD action following the two prior visits suggests that those conditions, while unclean, were not seriously threatening and did not necessitate additional, immediate intervention through the civil process. Without a record of further intervention, it is difficult for this Court to envision how conditions that did not merit further civil action could put Defendant on notice of the potential for criminal prosecution. {43} We do not imply that the State need exhaust all of its civil remedies before turning to criminal sanction. However, use of the civil process seems particularly appropriate here. This is not a case where the children were subjected to physical violence, nor where the parents struggled with addiction and the children suffered as a resulta predicament all too common in child neglect cases. Instead, this is a case where the family struggled with poverty, and our ultimate goal should be to assist, rather than to punish, that status. Had the State intervened in a more meaningful way, the family would have either addressed the home environment or the State could have removed the children to protect their health and safety. Failing to intervene civilly, however, the State then put on a criminal case without the kind of specific and pointed evidence necessary to support the verdict. Evidence of diffuse hazards and a general lack of supervision is insufficient to establish that the children faced specific and identifiable harm in violation of the endangerment statute. Without additional evidence, the risk of harm was only speculative, indicating that Defendant's conviction was based on the condition of his home rather than the specific dangers arising therefrom.