Court Opinion

ID: 9526899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:25:44.334055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:17.288641
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The trier of fact was warranted in concluding that appellant lied when describing the manner in which her child was burned and that she sought to hide her conduct. The trier of fact was further warranted in concluding that appellant held the child in her hands and that she immersed the child into the bath tub which was half-filled with scalding hot water and held her there from 1 to 5 seconds. A five-second period of time is commonly accepted to be the time it takes to say the words, “one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three, one thousand four, one thousand five,” at a normal rate. The trier of fact was not warranted in concluding from the evidence presented and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, to a moral certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant did these things with the criminal intent charged, that is, with an intent to “substantially interfere with the liberty” of the child, I.C. 35-42-3-1, or to touch her “in a rude, insolent, or angry manner,” I.C. 35-42-2-1. Proof of a lack of ordinary care or proof of reckless conduct, i.e., conscious disregard of harm that might result or engaging in conduct which has a tendency to result in harm, is insufficient. Luther v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 619, 98 N.E. 640; Denman v. State (1982), Ind.App., 432 N.E.2d 426. I vote to reverse.