U.S. v. Plant, 74 M.J. 297

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134 -- Child Endangerment (para 68a, MCM) Pre-2019 offenses

1. the elements of the child endangerment offense are (1) that the accused had a duty for the care of a certain child, (2) that the child was under the age of 16 years, (3) that the accused endangered the child’s mental or physical health, safety, or welfare through design or culpable negligence, and (4) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces
2. the third element of child endangerment requires an accused to have endangered a child; endanger means to subject one to a reasonable probability of harm
3. in this case, the third element of child endangerment has two requirements: (1) the accused’s acts or omissions must endanger the child’s safety; and (2) the accused’s mental state must be that of culpable negligence; each aspect of the third element requires a different threshold of risk; the threshold of risk for endanger is conduct that subjects the child to a reasonable probability, not merely a reasonable possibility, of harm; however, the threshold of risk for the mental state of culpable negligence is lower; the government establishes culpable negligence if a reasonable person would be aware that the accused’s conduct might foreseeably result in harm to a child, even though such harm would not necessarily be the natural and probable consequences of such acts; because the threshold of risk of harm for establishing culpable negligence is lower than that required for endangerment, the facts may satisfy the mental state of culpable negligence despite failing to establish the act of endangerment
4. in this case, the evidence was not legally sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for child endangerment where there was no substantiation in the record for the proposition that appellant’s intoxication at the time he had a duty to care for his son created a reasonable probability that his healthy thirteen-month-old son, who was placed in his own crib to sleep during ordinary bedtime hours, would experience harm; viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and acknowledging that the possibility of harm could not be ruled out, on the facts of this case, no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a reasonable probability that appellant’s son’s mental or physical health, safety, or welfare were endangered on the night in question; although appellant’s actions of drinking an excessive amount of alcohol while caring for his young child were irresponsible, a criminal conviction for child endangerment requires more than a showing of irresponsible behavior coupled with speculation by the prosecution about what possibly could have happened to a child as a consequence of an accused’s conduct; rather, it requires proof that the accused’s conduct, either through design or culpable negligence, resulted in a reasonable probability that the child would be harmed; here, there was no such showing by the government

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. an appellate court reviews the legal sufficiency of an offense de novo; to determine whether evidence is legally sufficient, the court asks whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; this determination is based on the evidence before the factfinder