Court Opinion

ID: 9531884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:15:40.246852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:36.955043
License: Public Domain

*1281Springer, J.,
dissenting:
Smith’s conviction is void on its face. The majority points out that “Smith was charged by way of information with two separate counts of abuse and neglect.” The two counts in the information contain different allegations of fact and could have resulted in Smith’s conviction of either or both of the charges. The majority concedes that under the evidence the jury “could find Smith guilty of either Count I or Count II.”
The majority recognizes that “Smith argues that because the jury was given a general verdict form, it was not possible to determine whether the jury convicted her on Count I or Count II.” Smith would very much like to know whether she was convicted on Count I or Count II, or both Count I and Count II. The general guilty verdict submitted by the jury does not give her this information and neither does the judgment of conviction.1
The majority notes that “it appears that Smith was convicted on Count II,” because the prosecution seemed to “focusfj” on this charge. (My emphasis.) It “appears” to me that, quite possibly, Smith was convicted of the charges contained in Count I rather than Count II. The majority blithely concedes that “there is no way to confirm whether the jury convicted Smith on Count I or Count II.” The obvious problem here is that this court does not know whether Smith stands convicted of the crime charged under Count I or the crime charged in Count II; and, more importantly, Smith herself does not know why she is in prison.
In its conclusion the majority proclaims, without explanation, that “substantial evidence existed to convict Smith of either Count I or Count II of the information. (My emphasis.) The majority seems to be saying that it does not make any difference which one of the counts that the jury had in mind when it voted to convict Smith. In my opinion, it makes a world of difference.
*1282I am unwilling to vote to affirm a conviction when I do not know which count in an information the judgment of conviction is based upon; therefore, I dissent.

As I read the record, there is really no judgment of conviction entered in this case. All there is in the written “Judgment of Conviction” is the following:
THEREFORE, the Clerk of the above entitled Court is hereby directed to enter this Judgment of Conviction as part of the record in the above entitled matter.
It is not at all clear what the district judge had in mind in referring to “this Judgment of Conviction.” There is no reference in the supposed judgment to either count of the indictment. The recitals in the written judgment refer only to Smith’s “having been found guilty of the crime of CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT WITH SUBSTANTIAL BODILY HARM (Felony),” with no reference to the charges. I do not know; and, obviously, Smith does not know what Smith was actually convicted of.