Court Opinion

ID: 9937366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:01:12.590187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:04.498558
License: Public Domain

The crucial issue in this case is whether the injury to the child was foreseeable under the facts of this case. The evidence showed that the appellants were aware of the continued presence of ants in the apartment and that they took no precautionary measures to protect the four-day-old infant on his first night in the home. Furthermore, the appellants failed to "exercise reasonable diligence" in preventing the infant from being seriously injured when they placed the child in a closed room and did not monitor the child throughout the night.
Parents must take responsibility where the child is of such a tender age and condition that the child is unable to protect itself from harm. The legislature intended to punish such conduct criminally when it enacted the offense of endangering the welfare of a child.
The majority is incorrect in its conclusion that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendants.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the appellants' conviction. *Page 1130