Jones v. Com.
2006 Va. LEXIS 109, 272 Va. 692, 636 S.E.2d 403 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's willful act of both selling illegal drugs from the home and allowing an unattended child access to those drugs is conduct so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life, satisfying the requirements for felony child neglect under Virginia Code § 18.2-371.1(B)(1) without requiring proof of actual injury.
Facts:
- For three months, Cheryl Kashawn Jones sold approximately 20 capsules of heroin daily from her apartment.
- Police surveillance and a confidential informant established that narcotics were sold from the apartment, weapons were present, and lookouts were posted day and night.
- On October 23, 2003, police executed a search warrant at Jones' apartment, where Jones and eight children were present.
- Jones' eight-year-old son, Donya, was found alone in a bedroom doing his homework on a bed.
- Within Donya's arm's reach on a nightstand was a medicine bottle with a 'childproof' cap containing fourteen capsules of heroin.
- Under the mattress near Donya's head was a dinner plate with cocaine residue and drug packaging materials.
- When questioned, Jones stated, 'I watch at least ten kids, and I can't keep track of everything.'
Procedural Posture:
- Cheryl Kashawn Jones was indicted for felony child neglect in violation of Code § 18.2-371.1(B)(1).
- Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (the trial court of first instance) found Jones guilty.
- Jones, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia, the highest court in the state, awarded Jones, as appellant, this appeal to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent's conduct of selling drugs from her home and leaving her unattended eight-year-old child with access to heroin and cocaine residue constitute a willful act so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for the child's life under Virginia Code § 18.2-371.1(B)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice G. Steven Agee
Yes, a parent's conduct of selling drugs from her home and leaving her child with access to those drugs constitutes a willful act showing a reckless disregard for the child's life. The totality of the evidence supports the conviction for felony child neglect. The court's reasoning is twofold: First, leaving deadly narcotics like heroin and cocaine residue within arm's reach of an unattended eight-year-old child creates a substantial risk of serious injury or death, which a reasonable fact finder can infer as a matter of common knowledge. The presence of a 'childproof' cap is not a sufficient safeguard, as an eight-year-old is likely capable of opening it. Second, operating an ongoing drug-selling business from the home inherently creates a high-risk environment of violence, either from other participants in the drug trade or from law enforcement action, as demonstrated by the police raid itself. This conduct goes beyond mere negligence and constitutes a willful, gross, and wanton disregard for the child's life, creating a probability of serious harm, which is sufficient for a conviction under the statute without proof of actual injury.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of felony child neglect in Virginia, establishing that creating a dangerous environment through illicit drug activity can satisfy the statute's 'reckless disregard for human life' standard, even if the child suffers no actual physical injury. The court's holding emphasizes a 'totality of the circumstances' approach, focusing on both the immediate danger of accessible narcotics and the ambient risk of violence inherent in the drug trade. While the court explicitly states this is not a per se rule, it provides strong precedent for prosecutors in cases where children are exposed to home-based drug operations, lowering the bar from proving actual harm to demonstrating a substantial risk of harm.
