Opinion ID: 2821364
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unlawful Conduct Towards a Child.

Text: The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's denial of both petitioners' motions for directed verdicts on the charges of unlawful conduct towards a child in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 63-5-70 (2010).5 This statute provides: (A) It is unlawful for a person who has charge or custody of a child, or who is the parent or guardian of a child, or who is responsible for the welfare of a child as defined in Section 63- 7-20 to: (1) place the child at unreasonable risk of harm affecting the child's life, physical or mental health, or safety; (2) do or cause to be done unlawfully or maliciously any bodily harm to the child so that the life or health of the child is endangered or likely to be endangered; or (3) willfully abandon the child. We find there is no evidence in this record that Palmer either harmed the victim or was aware Gorman was harming him. In fact, the State does not contest Palmer's entitlement to a directed verdict on this charge in its respondent's brief on certiorari. On the other hand, Gorman told at least two people that she was continuing to give the victim Xyzal, which has a sedative effect, after it was no longer medically indicated, and in amounts three to five times the recommended dosage. This alone is some evidence she placed the victim at an unreasonable risk of harm. Further, she admitted lacking patience, smacking the victim on his hands and his diapered behind, and shaking him, but not hard. From this evidence, a jury could find Gorman acted maliciously in causing bodily harm, as reflected in the unusual bruises found on the victim's body on July 14. 5 At the time of the petitioners' indictment this statute was codified as § 20-7-50. We affirm the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the trial court's denial of Gorman's directed verdict motion on the charge of unlawful conduct towards a child, but reverse its decision as to Palmer's motion.