Court Opinion

ID: 9669964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:11:41.059158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:01.373260
License: Public Domain

Robert W. Hansen, J.
(dissenting). On appeal, reversal of a criminal conviction is warranted only when *467the evidence in support of conviction is so insufficient that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of facts acting reasonably could be convinced to the degree of certitude the law defines as beyond a reasonable doubt. (See: Baldwin v. State (1973), 59 Wis. 2d 116, 121, 122, 207 N. W. 2d 630.)
In the case before us, a two-year-old child died from internal bleeding due to multiple ruptures of abdominal tissue caused by a direct external blow of sufficient force to pin the bowel against the spine. The court, as trier of fact, found that the defendant caused the death of the child, and there is more than sufficient evidence to support that finding. The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. That crime is committed by one who causes the death of another human being by conduct imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind.
The evidence and entirely reasonable inferences to be drawn from it here support the finding that the defendant caused the death of the child by hurling her body with great force from the area of the kitchen door at the metal-framed bunk bed, her body striking that portion of the bunk bed where the metal frame met the wooden back post.- The majority opinion holds such throwing of such two-year-old child against such metal frame of a bunk bed, as a matter of law, not to constitute conduct imminently dangerous to such infant and not to evince a depraved mind regardless of infant life.
The trial court, as trier of fact, held that: “The throwing of a two-year-old child a distance into a piece of furniture is obviously imminently dangerous conduct. . . .” While the holding might be challenged as to an assault upon an able-bodied adult, applied either to a two-year-old child or a person enfeebled by old age, the writer sees the conclusion as reasonably to be inferred from the evidence here, including the statement of the defendant as to what he did and how he did it.
*468As to whether the act of the defendant which caused the death of the child evinced a depraved mind, the definition of that state of mind from a recent decision of this court is pertinent: “To constitute a depraved mind, more than a high degree of negligence or recklessness must exist. The mind must not only disregard the safety of another but be devoid of regard for the life of another. ... A depraved mind has a general intent to do the acts and the consciousness of the nature of the acts and possible result but lacks the specific intent to do the harm. . . .” (State v. Weso (1973), 60 Wis. 2d 404, 411, 412, 210 N. W. 2d 442); also stating, “. . . the qualities of the act as imminently dangerous and envincing a depraved mind regardless of human life are to be found in the act itself and the circumstances of its commission. . . .” (Id. at page 409, citing State v. Weltz (1923), 155 Minn. 143, 193 N. W. 42.) Here the act itself and the circumstances surrounding it — hurling a two-year-old child a considerable distance at a metal-framed bunk bed, with the degree of force required to severely rupture her viscera — sufficiently supports a trial court finding the act and the circumstances surrounding it did evince a depraved mind regardless of human life. The trial court noted that this case did “. . . differ in kind and in substance from other second-degree murder cases which the court is familiar with. . . .” It is rare, and fortunately so, that a two-year-old child is hurled like a projectile at a metal-framed object with the force required to rupture her viscera. Fortunately so, but the rarity of the occurrence does not here warrant holding as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the crime committed Was that of murder in the second degree. The writer would affirm.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Leo B. Haneey joins in this dissenting opinion.