Court Opinion

ID: 9919017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 14:02:25.282233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:56.161310
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                                    Decided: January 17, 2024

                       S23A0905. RAMIREZ v. THE STATE.

        PINSON, Justice.

        Appellant Amalia Ramirez was convicted of the malice murder

of her elderly mother, Himilce Ramirez, after Himilce was found

dead in Ramirez’s home in a barren room. Ramirez was Himilce’s

sole caregiver, and Himilce was found with signs of severe neglect,

including sepsis, necrosis, stage-four bedsores, and parts of her body

fused together from lack of movement. 1 Ramirez argues on appeal

        1 Himilce died on December 6, 2018. On November 19, 2019, a Forsyth

County grand jury returned an indictment charging Ramirez with malice mur-
der (Count 1), felony murder predicated on exploitation of an elder person
(Count 2), felony murder predicated on neglect of an elder person (Count 3),
exploitation of an elder person (Count 4), and neglect of an elder person (Count
5). After a jury trial from June 28, 2021, to July 13, 2021 (which included a
recess from July 2, 2021, until July 12, 2021), the jury found Ramirez guilty of
all counts. On July 13, 2021, the trial court sentenced Ramirez to life in prison
for the malice murder (Count 1) and the remaining counts either merged or
were vacated by operation of law. On the same day, Ramirez, through trial
counsel, filed a timely motion for new trial, which was later amended by new
that her conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence because

there was no evidence of malice. But the evidence, which we recount

in detail below, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that

Ramirez acted with malice. So we affirm her conviction.

      1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evi-

dence showed that Himilce, who was 83 years old, died of a combi-

nation of sepsis, stage-four pressure ulcers (i.e., bedsores) with oste-

omyelitis (inflammation of the bone), dehydration, and mild bron-

chopneumonia. Ramirez did not report Himilce’s death. Instead, law

enforcement arrived at the home where Ramirez and Himilce lived

in response to a suicide threat by Ramirez, who reported that she

had nothing to live for and had taken pills to kill herself because her

mother was dead. After entering the house, the responding patrol

officer noticed a foul smell. At the officer’s request, Ramirez led him

to the room where Himilce’s body lay. Paramedics and investigators

counsel on June 29, 2022. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for
new trial, as amended, on March 1, 2023. Ramirez filed a timely notice of ap-
peal on March 6, 2023. Her appeal was docketed to the August 2023 term of
this Court and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
                                       2
arrived soon after and confirmed Himilce’s death.

     Ramirez said that she had last seen Himilce alive around 9:00

or 10:00 p.m. the night before the officers arrived. Ramirez said that

she then woke up around 3:30 a.m., checked on Himilce, and discov-

ered she was dead. At that time, Ramirez washed Himilce’s body

with soap and water and changed her diaper and T-shirt.

     Ramirez told police she had quit her job two years before to

care for Himilce full-time. She said she made meals for Himilce and

changed her clothes and diaper; she said Himilce would sometimes

complain if her diaper had not been changed. Ramirez also said that

Himilce was bedridden and sometimes made noises indicating pain,

but Ramirez did not know what type of pain Himilce was experienc-

ing, did not think Himilce had any medical diagnoses, and did not

take Himilce to the doctor or give her any medication. A neighbor

who had lived across the street from Ramirez for between one-and-

a-half and two years had never met or seen Himilce.

     Overall, Ramirez’s home appeared clean and was filled with

scented candles. But the room where Himilce’s body was found was

                                  3
dirty, with cat litter on the carpet and cobwebs in the ceiling corners,

and it smelled like urine, feces, and body odor. The room had no fur-

niture or décor other than a bare mattress on a box spring, a chair

“full of stuff” including an “unidentified mess,” and a television. The

mattress and box spring were covered in plastic, holes were worn

into the plastic, and where the mattress and box spring were ex-

posed, they were stained brown. Himilce was covered with a blanket

and dressed in a T-shirt and an unsecured adult diaper.

     Detective Lauren Belfani, the lead investigator, described the

crime scene as “shocking” and “heartbreaking.” When investigators

removed the blanket from Himilce’s body to photograph her, Detec-

tive Belfani immediately observed that Himilce’s feet and lower legs

looked like “scales” or “leather.” Detective Belfani also observed that

Himilce’s arms appeared to be different sizes and saw sores on

Himilce’s legs, under her diaper, and on her back. Detective Belfani

said that some of the sores on Himilce’s back smelled and looked to

be black in color. The photos the investigators took of Himilce’s body

were admitted into evidence and published to the jury.

                                   4
     Both parties presented expert testimony about Himilce’s med-

ical condition. Both experts agreed the cause of Himilce’s death was

a combination of sepsis, bedsores with osteomyelitis, dehydration,

and bronchopneumonia. Photos from Himilce’s autopsy were admit-

ted into evidence and published to the jury.

     The medical examiner explained that sepsis is an infection that

starts in one organ and spreads throughout the body via the blood-

stream. It is treatable with antibiotics. The medical examiner con-

cluded that Himilce’s sepsis likely originated with a urinary tract

infection, but the medical examiner could not rule out an association

between the sepsis and an infection to the bone from Himilce’s stage-

four bedsores. The medical examiner explained that symptoms of

sepsis typically include fever and sometimes vomiting. The level of

infection in Himilce’s body was at a “panic level,” which would have

required immediate attention before she died.

     The medical examiner explained that a bedsore is “a lesion on

the skin that forms from pressure of the skin onto a surface from not

moving very much.” Bedsores begin as redness or irritation of the

                                 5
skin (stage-one); if they progress, the skin begins to break down. If

untreated, the skin can break open and the area can become in-

fected, causing more and more layers of skin to break down. Even-

tually, muscle will break down, too, until the infection reaches the

bone underneath the skin. This last stage is classified as stage-four

bedsores, which many of Himilce’s bedsores were: her bones were

visible through lesions at her knees and heel.

     The medical examiner described Himilce’s skin as “flaky” and

“thick” and observed several healing lesions on her lower legs. The

medical examiner noted that the skin of Himilce’s knees were fused

together, and during the autopsy she had to use a scalpel to cut

Himilce’s legs apart; otherwise, they could not be separated. The

medical experts agreed that the fusion was a result of pressure

sores, caused by the pressure of Himilce’s legs touching each other.

The medical examiner explained that the skin of one leg had

“healed” to the skin of the other leg, causing them to fuse together.

The medical examiner also noted that Himilce’s stomach fat, which

                                 6
would normally shift back-and-forth, was stuck in place. The medi-

cal examiner was unable to determine, through her experience or

research, exactly how long someone would have to lay in the same

position for this to happen. She opined that “perhaps” it could hap-

pen in a week but that it also could be consistent with someone lying

in the same position for a year. Based on the fusion of the skin at

Himilce’s knees and the fixed nature of her stomach fat, as well as

the difference in size of her legs due to muscle loss in one and fluid

retention in the other, the medical examiner concluded that Himilce

had been lying on her side with her waist twisted and the right leg

on the surface of the bed for an extended period. The medical exam-

iner had never seen someone with their legs and stomach fat fused

in place from lack of movement. Likewise, the pathologist Ramirez

called to testify also had never seen this degree of fusion and agreed

with the medical examiner that the fused tissue at Himilce’s stom-

ach and knees indicated she had been in the same position for “a

long time.”

     The medical examiner also observed necrosis (rotting muscle),

                                  7
pus (indicating infection), stage-four bedsores on Himilce’s legs, bed-

sores on her back, necrosis of the joints, and exposed bone visible

through lesions in her skin. The right side of her back had ulcerated

lesions and necrosis with black tissue, and her rib bones were visible

through her skin. In addition, the medical examiner observed osteo-

myelitis, an inflammation of the bone, and concluded that the oste-

omyelitis of Himilce’s knees had been present for at least several

weeks and that osteomyelitis of her heel and back had been present

for at least one-to-two days before her death. There was scar tissue

around some of Himilce’s bedsores, indicating healing. According to

the pathologist who testified for the defense, the fact that Himilce’s

bedsores were in various stages of healing indicated that they “had

been there for a very significant period of time.”

     In addition to Himilce’s fused knees, which would have pre-

vented her from walking, the medical examiner observed that her

iliopsoas muscle—the muscle that connects the spine, pelvis, and

hips—was necrotic (rotting) and smaller than expected, which indi-

                                  8
cated that the muscle had shrunk from lack of use. The medical ex-

aminer noted signs of malnutrition, such as atrophy of the muscles

in Himilce’s face, which gave her face a “sunken-in look,” dehydra-

tion, and only bile in her stomach. The medical examiner also con-

cluded that Himilce had pneumonia, kidney stones, necrosis of the

bladder, and gallstones.

     No evidence was introduced that explained how Himilce be-

came bedridden in the first place. The medical examiner testified

that Himilce’s heart was relatively healthy for her age, and while

she had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which makes it dif-

ficult to breathe, that would not normally make someone bedridden.

The medical examiner testified that all the conditions that contrib-

uted to Himilce’s death—sepsis, stage-four bedsores, dehydration,

and bronchopneumonia—were treatable. Other than allergy medi-

cation, Excedrin, and a topical medication, no medications were

found in the house. None of Himilce’s wounds were bandaged, no

ointment appeared on those areas, and they did not appear to have

been properly cleaned. The medical examiner testified that, if

                                 9
Himilce’s wounds had been treated, she would expect to see pink

skin around the wounds, instead of the black appearance and rotting

that was present around many of Himilce’s wounds. The medical ex-

aminer also explained that, if bedsores are treated at stage one, they

can be prevented from progressing to stage four. The pathologist

Ramirez called to testify said that treatment of bedsores includes

application of a prescription-only topical medication and use of spe-

cial pillows that help to relieve pressure points. No special pillows

or prescriptions for such medications were found in Ramirez’s house.

     2. Ramirez contends that the evidence was not sufficient to

support her conviction for malice murder because there was no evi-

dence of violence toward Himilce, what injuries caused her death, or

proof of willfulness. She argues that the evidence that she failed to

obtain medical care for Himilce showed only ordinary negligence,

not malice.

     When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the

evidence presented in the light most favorable to the verdicts to de-

                                 10
termine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defend-

ant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). In doing

so, we do not “weigh the evidence on appeal or resolve conflicts in

trial testimony,” Byers v. State, 311 Ga. 259, 266 (2) (857 SE2d 447)

(2021) (citation and punctuation omitted), but instead defer “to the

jury’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence.”

Jones v. State, 314 Ga. 692, 695 (878 SE2d 502) (2022) (citation and

punctuation omitted).

     Our murder statute declares that “[a] person commits the of-

fense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought,

either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.”

OCGA § 16-5-1 (a). The statute goes on to describe “express” and

“implied” malice: “Express malice is that deliberate intention unlaw-

fully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by

external circumstances capable of proof.” OCGA § 16-5-1 (b). And

“[m]alice shall be implied where no considerable provocation ap-

                                 11
pears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an aban-

doned and malignant heart.” Id.

     Because malice is a state of mind, it “frequently must be proven

indirectly.” Sanders v. State, 289 Ga. 656, 658 (1) (715 SE2d 124)

(2011), overruled on other grounds by Pounds v. State, 309 Ga. 376,

383 (3) (846 SE2d 48) (2020). As we explained in Sanders, a decision

affirming a malice-murder conviction for causing the death of a baby

involving severe neglect, “considerable indirect proof” may be

needed to determine whether a victim has been “starved, neglected

and abused with malice as to constitute murder, or has merely been

harmed as a result of inability, carelessness or accident.” Id. at 656-

659 (1) (evidence sufficient to support finding of malice where the

defendant was responsible for neglect of his baby that included ex-

treme malnourishment or starvation that was not caused by disease

or metabolic disorders, where the baby’s poor condition would have

been apparent for at least a week before his death, and where the

baby would have been able to recover from the bronchopneumonia

that contributed to his death if he had been treated). That said, it is

                                  12
for the jury to determine from all the facts and circumstances

whether a killing is malicious. See O’Neal v. State, 316 Ga. 264, 267

(1) (a) (888 SE2d 42) (2023); McNabb v. State, 313 Ga. 701, 709 (1)

(b) (872 SE2d 251) (2020); Benton v. State, 305 Ga. 242, 244 (1) (a)

(824 SE2d 322) (2019). See also Jackson v. State, 282 Ga. 668, 671

(653 SE2d 28) (2007) (rejecting defendant’s argument on appeal that

the evidence showed the killings were, at most, felony murders and

not malice murders, because the jury was authorized to conclude

from the evidence that he acted with implied malice and fired the

shots that killed the victims).

     Applying those standards here, the evidence authorized the

jury to conclude that Ramirez acted with malice and caused her

mother’s death. The evidence showed that Ramirez lived with

Himilce, was her sole caregiver, and was the only person known to

have had contact with her for over a year. And overwhelming evi-

dence showed that Himilce’s condition would have been obvious to

anyone who saw her: her skin was described as “flaky,” “thick,” and

like “scales” or “leather”; some of the sores had turned black in color

                                  13
and smelled; she also had rotting muscle, exposed bones, and pus

from infection. Although neither expert could say how long it would

have taken for Himilce’s bedsores to get so severe, the evidence sup-

ported a conclusion that Ramirez—again, Himilce’s only caregiver—

knowingly allowed Himilce’s obvious medical condition to deterio-

rate for a prolonged period of time until her death, without ever

seeking treatment or other intervention. Both experts agreed that

only a “long” period of lying in the same position would have caused

the skin at Himilce’s knees to fuse together and the fat of her stom-

ach to stick in place. And expert medical testimony made clear that

the stage-four bedsores and fused skin would not have happened

overnight or suddenly. At the time of her death, Himilce’s bedsores

had progressed to stage four, meaning her skin and muscle had bro-

ken down to expose the bones at her knees and heel. And, before the

bedsores progressed to this point, they would have presented first as

redness, then as broken skin, before reaching the point at which the

muscle broke down to expose the bone beneath—a progression that

Ramirez hardly could have missed if she had been changing Himilce

                                 14
or otherwise providing any kind of “care” for her. As for sepsis,

Himilce’s infection had reached a “panic level” requiring immediate

attention, and the expert testimony indicated Himilce’s symptoms

would have included fever and possibly vomiting. And the jury could

infer from the evidence that Ramirez, who was the sole provider of

Himilce’s meals, would know how much water she was drinking, so

would know whether she could be dehydrated. Based on all the evi-

dence presented, the jury could infer that Himilce’s declining health

would have been obvious to Ramirez, who said she had quit her job

to become Himilce’s full-time caregiver and was the only person

known to have had contact with Himilce for over a year. 2

     The medical experts also agreed that Himilce’s various condi-

tions were preventable or treatable: Her bedsores and the fusion of

her legs and stomach fat could have been prevented or at least im-

proved by proper treatment, and her sepsis, dehydration, and bron-

chopneumonia—together, the causes of her death, according to the

     2 We express no opinion as to whether similar evidence of severe neglect

would support a conviction for malice murder where the defendant was not the
victim’s sole, live-in caregiver.
                                    15
medical testimony—were likewise treatable. Yet there was no evi-

dence that these conditions had been treated in any way—there was

no evidence of any prescription medication in the home, such as pre-

scription cream used to treat bedsores, the antibiotics used to treat

sepsis, or any medication for treating pneumonia, and there were no

special pillows that were used to relieve pressure on the body and

prevent bedsores for bedbound individuals. The medical experts

were unable to identify any underlying disease that Himilce suffered

from and would have caused Himilce to become bedridden, and

Ramirez, her sole caregiver, allowed Himilce’s bedsores to progress

to the point where the skin of her knees fused together due to the

lack of treatment, which prevented her from moving them.

     From all of these circumstances surrounding Himilce’s death,

including her malnourishment, her other various medical conditions

caused by severe neglect, and the “shocking” state she was found in,

the jury was authorized to conclude that Ramirez caused her

mother’s death with malice by allowing Himilce—a woman of ad-

                                 16
vanced age under Ramirez’s exclusive care—to lay immobile and un-

treated for such a prolonged period until she died. See Sanders, 289

Ga. at 656-659 (1). See also Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 276-279 (1)

(a) (845 SE2d 625) (2020) (concluding that the evidence authorized

the jury to conclude that the defendant acted with malice where the

defendant held the victim at gun-point, restrained his hands and

taped him to a chair, disregarding the victim’s repeated outcries that

he needed medication, and left the victim bound to his chair, where

he was later found dead due to prolonged restraint and complica-

tions from lack of medication).

     Ramirez points out that no evidence indicated she was ever vi-

olent toward Himilce. But evidence of violence is not a necessary

component of malice. As in Sanders, the evidence of severe and pro-

longed neglect here authorized the jury to find that the killing was

malicious. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (b); Sanders, 289 Ga. at 657-659 (1).

In sum, under these circumstances, taken together and viewed in

the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury was authorized to

find Ramirez guilty of malice murder. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (b).

                                  17
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

                           18