Court Opinion

ID: 9567378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:53:18.637797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:35.006503
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
specially concurring.
I have no difference with anything that is said in the majority opinion in this case, and indeed I concur in it.
Reference there is made to expert testimony as to the likelihood that the injuries to Heather occurred in closer proximity in time to her death on December 17, 1980, than December 13, 1980. It was on December 13, 1980, that appellant admitted to having assaulted Heather. My perception of the appellant’s argument is that it is out of this asserted inconsistency that the claim of insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction arises.
I would foreclose that claim by calling attention to the fact that twice on December 16, 1980, the day before Heather’s death, she was in the custody of the appellant. Heather’s mother went to work about 9:00 or 9:30 a. m., and arrived home around 4:00 p. m. that day. The appellant babysat the children (Heather and an older brother) while she was at work. That evening Heather’s mother went to visit her mother around 9:00 p. m., and about a quarter to 10:00 p. m. she received a telephone call from the appellant advising that Heather was sick and that he had called the ambulance. He had been left in charge of Heather during this period also.
As I understand prior cases before'this court, trauma, which according to expert testimony was inflicted by abusing the child, coupled with an opportunity to inflict the injuries, is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Grabill v. State, Wyo., 621 P.2d 802 (1980); Seyle v. State, Wyo., 584 P.2d 1081 (1978); and Jones v. State, Wyo., 580 P.2d 1150 (1978). The evidence of the events on December 16, 1980, together with the expert testimony would be sufficient to sustain a conclusion by the jury that the fatal injuries were inflicted on that day. Consequently, I perceive an alternative theory upon which the jury lawfully could have convicted Rinehart which would be even more consistent with the expert testimony.
*195I think the message to adults in the State of Wyoming is clear. If a child is injured or dies from injuries that expert testimony advises are consistent with child abuse in the form of physical assault, and an adult person had the opportunity to inflict such injuries, that person may be charged with child abuse or homicide. If that person is convicted he or she can expect no relief from this court when a claim is presented on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Our rule has been formulated for the purpose of deterring this terrible form of human violence, and it will be applied to attain that goal.