Domestic Violence II - Recap rules of law PDF

Preview

Summary

Recap rules of law...

Description

Domestic Violence Part II Pgs. 1189-1199 State v. Moorman Pg. 1192 Issue: Whether the assistant county medical examiner should be considered an expert on Battered Child Syndrome? Facts: - EMTs arrived at Moorman’s house and observed Labria, a 22 month old lying face up on the floor o Her body was stiff and her skin cool and cyanotic - Labria was in cardiac arrest, and attempts to resuscitate were unavailing - Doctor noticed multiple bruises about her torso, arms, abdomen, lower belly and chest o Also notices scarring on her left and right buttocks o Concluded that the tauma suffered by the infant was of suspicious origin - Moorman was questioned o Indicated daughter was suffering from a fever and cold system during the 5 days before o When asked about the bruising and scarring, she replied that Labria had fallen down a flight of stairs but seemed okay. o Also claimed she had fallen down the stairs a month earlier and was treated at a different hospital - After interview, Moorman was arrested and charged with and arrested for murder - Trial judge held a Rule 104 hearing on the State’s request to allow its medical expert to render an opinion as to whether Labria had suffered from batter child syndrome o Allowed - Court recognized the assistant county medical examiner as an expert on BCS Holding: Yes Analysis: - For expert testimony to be considered reliable, the proponent of the testimony must demonstrate its general acceptability as scientific evidence - Trial judge properly recognized BCS as a valid scientific premise underlying the examiner’s opinion o BCS is generally recognized in the medical profession on a multidisciplinary level o There is sufficient, authoritative legal and medical literature to substantiate the conclusion that BCS has been widely accepted in the medical community o Numerous other jurisdictions have accepted BCS as a reliable scientific premise

Domestic Violence Part II Pgs. 1189-1199 Note: Battered Child Syndrome refers to the physical, mechanical abuse of children. It is also used to describe a pattern of serious and unexplained manifestations of physical abuse in children. The classic case is one in which the victim exhibits multiple injuries of varying ages to the head or abdomen. The victim frequently presents recently healed skeletal injuries as well. Neither a designated number or type of injury nor a fatality are required to reach a finding that a child has suffered from BCS. The

Chronister v. Brenneman Pg. 1195 Brief Fact Summary. Appellant challenged the trial court’s entry of a protection order based upon his corporal punishment of his daughter. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Pennsylvania law includes a parental privilege against criminal claims that involve corporal punishment. Such a privilege should be read in congruence with the PFA requirements. Facts. - Appellant administered corporal punishment on his sixteen-year-old daughter in the form of hitting her four to five times across the buttocks with a folded belt for lying. o The daughter testified that the punishment was painful and made her cry. - She reported the incident to her older half-sister, who contacted CYS and reported the incident o CYS refused to intervene because the behavior alleged was not viewed as implicating CYS involvement - Later that evening appellant and his girlfriend had a discussion with the daughter regarding the rules of the house. - Shortly thereafter, appellant left the table and retrieved a pistol from the cupboard, looked at the gun, walked by his daughter and proceeded upstairs. o He testified that he had remembered that he left the gun downstairs and retrieved it, checked to make sure it was unloaded, then took it upstairs where he stores his firearms. - The next day a Petition for Protection From Abuse [PFA] was filed. o The daughter testified regarding the facts and also being frightened and intimidated by the incident as well as by appellant’s statements that similar punishment would follow. o Appellant testified that his actions were solely designed to discipline his daughter. - The court entered the subject PFA order, and the present appeal followed. Issue. Did the court err in finding that appellant’s actions resulted in a need for a PFA order? Held. The trial court erred because appellant’s actions did not constitute abuse under the statute. Analysis. The Court notes that nothing in the opinion should be construed as either approval or disapproval of appellant’s choice of discipline. - It is not for the Court to dictate how a parent should discipline their children.

Domestic Violence Part II Pgs. 1189-1199 -

The law allows a parent to administer corporal punishment. o Appellant’s motivation appears to be beyond reproach, and nothing suggests o

-

-

the acts were designed as anything but punishment. There is no evidence of malevolence or an attempt to terrorize his daughter.

Intent is an important element, but this does not mean that actions could not amount to abuse regardless of intent. Abuse is defined as attempting to cause or intentional, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury. o Bodily injury is an impairment of physical condition or substantial pain. o In the present case there is no evidence of anything more than a temporary painful condition. Nor is there evidence of bodily impairment. Pennsylvania criminal law allows as a defense a parental privilege to administer corporal punishment where the force is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or mental distress or gross degradation. o If the present activity were viewed as violating the PFA Act then a parent could exercise this privilege only to suffer the consequence of losing custody of the child.

Dissent. An accurate view of the record reveals appellant’s punishment was severe enough to cause bruising and that he handled her severely enough to leave imprints from his hands on her body. This, in addition to appellant’s need to remove his gun in his daughter’s presence warrants the protection from abuse order. The majority fails to consider testimony from the daughter that she received a bruise on her thigh and handprints from being ht by her father. The majority thereby disregards the trial court’s factual findings and its credibility determinations. Nothing in the statute requires the pain to be of a continuing, it need only be substantial....