Tag Archives: Guest Post

Tennessee Supreme Court Examines What is “Knowing” in “Severe Child Abuse” Law

Evidence

By David L. Hudson, Jr.

The Tennessee Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion that had found there was clear and convincing evidence that both parents of a young infant found with 22 rib fractures had committed “severe child abuse.”   Instead, the state high court found in In Re Markus E. that there was insufficient evidence that the parents’ actions or omissions were “knowing.”

The case involved a prematurely born infant – known in court papers as Markus E. – who suffered from a variety of ailments, including neonatal Graves disease, an overactive thyroid condition, chronic subdural hematomas, bronchitis and — most disturbingly – 22 rib fractures.

A child abuse specialist at Vanderbilt determined that the likely cause of the fractures was child abuse.  Because of this diagnosis, the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) got involved and ultimately sought a termination of the parental rights of both the mother and father of Markus E.

In September 2015, a juvenile court in Davidson County found Markus E. to be a dependent and neglected child.  The parents appealed the dependency and neglect finding to circuit court. While this appeal was pending, DCS moved to terminate both parent’s parental rights.  Ultimately, in May 2019, a trial court issued a 73-page opinion granting DCS’s petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. The court credited expert testimony that the rib fractures were caused by child abuse.  The Tennessee Court of Appeals also found clear and convincing evidence to support the ground of severe child abuse as to both parents.

On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed in its May 19, 2023. Writing for the majority, Justice Holly Kirby explained that to terminate parental rights, a party, such as DCS in this case, must first establish a ground of termination and then show that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.

DCS sought two grounds in this case: (1) severe child abuse for both parents; and (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan by the mother.

The bulk of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s analysis examined what is “knowing” within the meaning of the “severe child abuse” statute in Tennessee.   The statute defines “severe child abuse” as follows:

The knowing exposure of a child to or the knowing failure to protect a child from abuse or neglect that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death and the knowing use of force on a child that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.

Kirby explained that “a parent’s failure to protect can be considered knowing if the parent was deliberately ignorant, as where the parent avoids actual knowledge of the abuse or neglect but is aware of facts, circumstances, or information that would put a reasonable parent on notice of the risk and the need to protect the child.”

She added that a person can knowingly commit severe child abuse “when he or she is either in deliberate ignorance of or in reckless disregard of the information that has been presented to him or her.”

She also explained that in these type cases, “the evidence shows that one parent inflicted the abuse and the other parent failed to protect the child from it.”

Kirby noted that Markus E. suffered many physical injuries and problems and that there was no finding that these were non-accidental, inflicted injuries.”  The mother, in fact, had taken her child to a variety of hospitals and health care providers when she had custody.   Furthermore, Kirby wrote that “[b]ecause rib fractures are not necessarily accompanied by external bruising or other identifiable body damage, the source of the pain, even from an acute or recent injury, may not be obvious.”

Kirby concluded that “the evidence in the record does not clearly and convincingly show that the failure of Mother and Father to protect Markus from the non-accidental rib fractures was ‘knowing.’”

Justice Sarah Campbell wrote a short concurring opinion that agreed with nearly all of Justice Kirby’s analysis.  However, Campbell wrote that in interpreting legislature purpose, the emphasis must be on the statutory text: “My only point of disagreement with the majority opinion is its suggestion that statutory interpretation requires consideration of a statute’s purposes and objectives separate and apart from its text.”

Questions about this article?  Contact daniel [at] horwitz.law.

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org.

Banned Books Week is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the dangers of censorship and the importance of the First Amendment

Constitutional Law, First Amendment, ,

In light of the ongoing furor over Nashville Prep’s edits to and a school board member’s complaint about the book entirely, a timely article by Professor David L. Hudson Jr. on banned book week.  Republished upon request from The Newseum Institute’s website:

By David L. Hudson, Jr.:

Beginning Sept. 27, 2015.  the American Library Association (ALA), the American Booksellers for Free Expression, and a host of other groups  will remind us once again that that banning books damages the “marketplace of ideas” and is contrary to the meaning and purpose of a free society and a constitutional democracy.

Acclaimed authors such as Toni Morrison, Kurt Vonnegut, and Maya Angelou have seen their books banned in certain school districts.   Classics such as J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Alice Walker’s The Color Purple have faced censorship.   The wildly popular Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling has faced significant opposition.

Books may be opposed for a variety of reasons, such as profanity, sexually explicit themes, sorcery, gambling, and violence.   The ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom website provides detailed descriptions of books challenged year by year and by decade, offers a top ten list, and provides detailed statistics.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the concept of banning books from a public school library in Bd. of Educ. v. Pico (1982). Five years ago, in an interview, Robert Rieger – one of the students who challenged the censorship in the Pico case – said that  “I couldn’t believe they were taking classics from the library.”

In the Pico decision, Justice William Brennan wrote that public school officials could not remove books from library shelves simply because they disagreed with the ideas in those books.   In his reasoning, Brennan emphasized the “right to receive ideas.”

This “right” should be sacrosanct in this nation.  Inquisitive minds shouldn’t be repressed or rebuffed. Rather, they should be applauded or encouraged.

We want an educated populace who loves to read and explore.  Justice Louis Brandeis warned in 1927 that “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.”

Celebrate “Banned Books Week” by taking time to reflect on the importance of First Amendment freedoms and the power of “the right to receive ideas.”

David L. Hudson, Jr. is the Ombudsman for the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center. He also is the author or co-author of more than 40 books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (2012).

____________

Like ScotBlog?  Join our email list or contact us here, or follow along on Twitter @Scot_Blog and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/scotblog.org

Tennessee Supreme Court Holds that a Witness’s Claim of Memory Loss Concerning Prior Statements Can Trigger Hearsay Exceptions and that Inconsistent Verdicts Are Acceptable

Criminal Procedure, Evidence, ,

Guest Post by Memphis Attorney Neil Umsted

A witness’ claimed lack of memory at trial, whether legitimate or feigned, will trigger a number of rules that can allow that witness’ prior statements to be introduced as substantive evidence, the Tennessee Supreme Court held in State v. Marlo Davis, W2011-01548-SC-R11-CD.  Moreover, the Court held that so-called “inconsistent verdicts” will not, standing alone, entitle a defendant to any relief.

Marlo Davis was indicted along with a co-defendant for felony murder and premeditated murder—alternative theories of guilt for the homicide of a single victim. At trial, one of the State’s key witnesses, Jarcquise Spencer, testified that he did not recall witnessing the shooting, that he did not recall identifying the Defendant as the shooter in a statement to police, and that he did not recall testifying at the preliminary hearing in the case.  The trial court, convinced that Spencer was feigning his memory loss, allowed the State to introduce Spencer’s prior statements and prior testimony as proof of the defendant’s guilt.

Continue reading Tennessee Supreme Court Holds that a Witness’s Claim of Memory Loss Concerning Prior Statements Can Trigger Hearsay Exceptions and that Inconsistent Verdicts Are Acceptable →