Court Opinion

ID: 9567377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:53:18.633792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:34.935217
License: Public Domain

RAPER, Justice.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter pursuant to § 6-4-107, W.S.1977, 1981 Cum.Supp.1 He appeals from the judgment and sentence entered against him contending that the expert testimony presented at trial provided an insufficient basis for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant’s act was the cause of the victim’s death.
We will affirm.
On the night of December 13,1980, appellant, who at that time was living with Judith K, was left to babysit Ms. K’s children. Sometime during the night appellant lost his temper with the youngest child, Heather, who was eleven months old. According to statements made by appellant after-wards, Heather “ ‘was being a pain in the ass,’ ” so “he picked her up out of the infant seat, grabbed her around the body and began shaking her, and then he tossed her in the crib or tossed her in her bed and popped her on the rear end.”
During the morning of December 14, 1980, Ms. K noticed a bruise on the child’s head and asked the appellant about it. At that time appellant disclaimed any knowledge of how it could have gotten there. Later that same day, Heather began displaying several unusual symptoms. She fell asleep particularly early and then when she awoke she began vomiting.
During the next several days these symptoms continued along with an unusual amount of crying. Then on the night of December 16, 1980, Heather was taken to a hospital emergency room in Sheridan. She was later flown to a Denver hospital where she died at 9:38 a. m. on December 17,1980. An autopsy showed the infant’s death to have been caused by cerebral edema or a swelling of the brain which placed too much pressure on the vital centers in the brain stem. Several subdural hematomas were also revealed.
The issue on appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence linking the brain swelling and the subdural hematomas to the incident which occurred on December 13, 1980. Appellant contends that the experts in their testimony failed to definitely conclude that the December 13, 1980 incident was the cause of death, and that thus there was an insufficient basis for the jury to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The oft-repeated rule by which we test the sufficiency of evidence on appeal of a criminal matter is that we examine and accept as true the evidence of the prosecution, leaving out of consideration entirely the evidence of the defendant in conflict therewith, and we give to the evidence of the prosecution every favorable inference which may reasonably and *194fairly be drawn therefrom. Stated another way — it is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for us, but rather whether it is sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by the jury when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. [Citations.]” Harvey v. State, Wyo., 596 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1979).
The prosecution called the doctor who had examined Heather at the hospital emergency room in Sheridan. He testified that in his opinion Heather’s condition was caused by a shaking which produced tears in the blood vessel connecting her dura. Also called was the attending physician in Denver. He concurred with the view that Heather’s death was ultimately caused by a shaking episode which resulted in the sub-dural hematoma and severe brain swelling. In his view the injury was most likely sustained within twenty-four to forty-eight hours before Heather’s arrival in Denver; however, he also indicated that it could have occurred up to five days before. Finally, the pathologist who performed Heather’s autopsy testified that her death was due to cerebral edema. His examination of Heather’s body also showed subdural hematomas of hours to days duration. He was also of the opinion the same incident caused the hematomas as well as the brain swelling, though he did acknowledge that it was possible they were caused by different incidents.
It also should be noted that Heather’s mother indicated in her testimony that she was aware of no accidents which happened to Heather during the time period of December 13 through December 16. Of further import, Ms. K’s testimony reflects that because of the child’s illness, Heather was under constant supervision.
Based on the evidence the jury could reasonably have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Heather’s death was the result of appellant shaking her the night of December 13,1980. We are not free to substitute our own judgment for that of the jury and therefore must affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.

. Section 6-4-107, W.S.1977, 1981 Cum.Supp. provides:
“Whoever unlawfully kills any human being without malice, expressed or implied, either voluntarily, upon a sudden heat of passion, or involuntarily, but in the commission of some unlawful act, except as provided in W.S. 31-5-1117, or by any culpable neglect or criminal carelessness, is guilty of manslaughter, and shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than twenty (20) years.”