Noakes v. Commonwealth
699 S.E.2d 284 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The improper performance of a lawful act constitutes criminal negligence sufficient for an involuntary manslaughter conviction when the act is performed in a manner so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life, judged by an objective standard of what the defendant knew or should have known.
Facts:
- Elizabeth Pollard Noakes provided childcare services in her home for several children, including 15-month-old Noah Colassaco.
- Noakes had difficulty getting Noah to sleep, as he would consistently stand in his crib and cry during nap time.
- On October 18, 2006, to prevent Noah from standing, Noakes devised a makeshift covering for his crib.
- She placed a piece of cardboard over the top of the crib and then positioned a 33.25-pound collapsed dog crate on top of the cardboard.
- After setting up this contraption, Noakes left Noah in the crib at approximately 1:00 p.m. and did not visually check on him again until after 4:00 p.m.
- Upon returning, Noakes found Noah unconscious, standing with his head and neck wedged between the side of the crib and the cardboard top, which was held down by the weight of the crate.
- An autopsy determined Noah's cause of death was asphyxia due to mechanical compression of the neck.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth Pollard Noakes was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in a bench trial in the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield.
- Noakes, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The Court of Appeals then granted a rehearing en banc and, with the full court hearing the case, again affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Noakes, as appellant, subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, the highest court in the state.
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 placing a thirty-three-pound collapsed dog crate on top of a toddler's crib to prevent him from standing, and subsequently leaving him without visual supervision for approximately three hours, constitute criminal negligence sufficient to sustain a conviction for involuntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kinser
Yes. Placing a heavy dog crate on a toddler's crib and leaving the child visually unmonitored for hours constitutes criminal negligence sufficient for an involuntary manslaughter conviction. Involuntary manslaughter is the accidental killing of a person during the improper performance of a lawful act, where that performance is so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life. The court applies an objective standard, meaning criminal negligence exists if the defendant knew or should have known the probable results of her actions. Noakes should have known that placing a toddler in such an inherently dangerous, makeshift enclosure created a substantial risk of serious injury or death. Her own attempts to test the stability of the crate demonstrate her awareness of the potential danger. Furthermore, leaving the child unattended for approximately three hours in this 'experimental and dangerous set-up' was a reckless disregard for his safety. The child's own actions in trying to free himself were not an unforeseeable intervening cause, but rather a predictable event 'put into operation' by Noakes's original negligent act.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the objective standard for criminal negligence in Virginia involuntary manslaughter cases, emphasizing what a defendant 'should have known' rather than their subjective intent. It serves as a significant precedent for cases involving childcare providers, establishing that creating makeshift and inherently dangerous solutions to common behavioral problems can rise to the level of a criminal act. The court's analysis of proximate cause is also critical, clarifying that a victim's foreseeable reaction to a defendant's dangerous conduct does not break the causal chain. This decision makes it more difficult for defendants to escape liability by claiming they took some minor precautions or that the victim's own actions were the direct cause of harm.
Unlock the full brief for Noakes v. Commonwealth