Court Opinion

ID: 9480900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:02:18.507047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:59.590939
License: Public Domain

TANG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Someone repeatedly and severely abused Quinton Boise. Sometime during the few days before Quinton died, the same person fractured Quinton’s skull. Twenty-four to forty-eight hours before he died, Quinton hemorrhaged subdurally — that is, bled within his skull. He hemorrhaged again in the few hours before he died. For those last few hours, Earl Boise was Quinton’s sole adult caretaker. From that, the prosecution sought to prove, not that Boise was criminally negligent, but that he struck the fatal blows. The jury found him guilty.
The majority concedes that the evidence is entirely circumstantial that Boise killed Quinton. Indeed, other than the circumstantial evidence that relates to Quinton’s final hemorrhage, there is no evidence that Boise ever harmed Quinton. But the majority finds the testimony of prosecution experts Doctors Lewman, Creelman, and Nakamura sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he struck the fatal blows. The majority believes these doctors testified “that if the boy had received the fatal head injury earlier [than his last few hours], he would have shown symptoms,” and “that in their medical opinion the blows [that ultimately killed Quinton] most likely occurred shortly before death.” Opinion at 499 n. 2. “[M]ost likely,” however, is not beyond a reason*507able doubt.* But even were “most likely” enough, the majority has misstated the testimony by failing to distinguish the expert’s testimony about the final hemorrhage from their testimony about the trauma that ultimately caused it.
There need be no doubt or dispute that some trauma, and presumably someone, fractured Quinton’s skull; no doubt that some trauma caused him to hemorrhage subdurally 24-48 hours before he died; and no doubt that whoever is responsible for that trauma is responsible for Quinton’s death. But there is no evidence that Quinton was reinjured again before his final hemorrhage. The final hemorrhage may well have occurred spontaneously, without trauma.
Thus Dr. Lewman responded to a long hypothetical, “Given that scenario and with reference to the recent findings, the edema and the subdural hematoma, it [that is, the trauma that fractured Quinton’s skull] occurred shortly before death.” Trial Transcript at 359 (emphasis added). But Dr. Lewman also distinguished the skull fractures from the bleeding.
Q It’s true, is it not, that the skull fractures can occur with little or no subdural bleeding?
A Yes.
Q And conversely, you can have this kind of lethal brain damage ... without skull fractures?
A That’s true.
Trial Transcript at 389 (Dr. Lewman testifying).
Q The fracture — if there was bleeding 24 hours before this baby died, you found some evidence that that in fact occurred?
A Certainly could have. Some of the changes are compatible with that.
Q And you cannot state to a medical certainty that the fracture ... did not occur at that time as well, can you?
A No.
Trial Transcript at 395 (Dr. Lewman testifying).
Dr. Creelman, asked whether Quinton “could have survived any significant length of time,” responded, “Not with the amount of bleeding that was evident at the time of autopsy.” Trial Transcript at 261-62 (emphasis added). Dr. Creelman also testified that
you can have skull fractures that don’t cause bleeding and just with the skull fracture without the bleeding you wouldn’t have the life-threatening event.
You can get the bleeding without skull fractures.
Q And you can get skull fracture without bleeding?
A Correct.
Trial Transcript at 263-64 (Dr. Creelman testifying).
Dr. Nakamura affirmed that “this baby after having been injured — the, the way this baby was, wouldn’t be doing normal baby things.” Trial Transcript at 548. But Dr. Nakamura also explained that
skull fractures can occur separately from internal brain injury. Bleeding can occur separate from skull fractures.... [A] combination of skull fractures and the type of bleeding that occurred in this child could not have occurred 24 hours before the child died.
Trial Transcript at 549-50 (emphasis added) (Dr. Nakamura testifying).
*508The majority also cites Dr. Brady s testimony that Quinton’s coma was “not the story of a continuous downhill progressive lethargy and change.” Trial Transcript at 780 (Dr. Brady testifying) (quoted in Opinion at 499 n. 2). Of course, that is true, but irrelevant to the question what caused the final hemorrhage.
Q Could subdural hematomas ever re-bleed?
A They very commonly do....
Q So if you found fresh flood in the presence of a clot, would that be evidence of rebleeding?
A Sure. They can either relatively spontaneously rebleed ..., the clot breaks loose itself, it will rebleed. Or certainly if there is additional injury....
Trial Transcript at 389 (Dr. Brady testifying).
Although it is the jury that must resolve evidentiary conflicts, the problem here is not conflict but no evidence at all. No doubt a jury of reasonable-minded people could have confused when the skull fractures occurred with when the bleeding occurred. The majority has the same confusion. But basing a verdict on confusion is not rational. Nor does confusion become rational by virtue of being shared. If the evidence confused the jury, it was obliged to acquit. That the evidence was insufficient to convict rationally obligates us to reverse. Earl Boise stands convicted of attending a victim of violence whose bleeding recurred. The law must not allow the inference that all who are similarly placed are murderers.

 Although the majority correctly notes that the evidence must be sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it discusses the evidence as if the standard were a preponderance. "A jury could reasonably infer that Boise killed Quinton.” Opinion at 500. "[Tjhe jury could reasonably infer that Boise displayed 'a wanton and depraved spirit....’" Opinion at 500. "The jury could reasonably infer that Boise killed Quinton with malice aforethought.” Opinion at 500.
To affirm on review for sufficiency of the evidence, we must find sufficient evidence to permit a rational jury to have no reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2791-92, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); United States v. Penagos, 823 F.2d 346, 347 (1987).