People v. Weisberg
265 Cal. App. 2d 476, 71 Cal. Rptr. 157 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Malice aforethought, required for a second-degree murder conviction, can be implied from evidence that the defendant intentionally inflicted severe, non-accidental injuries on a helpless victim, such as an infant. Evidence of prior similar acts of abuse against another child in the defendant's care is admissible to establish a characteristic behavior pattern and identify the defendant as the perpetrator.
Facts:
- Muriel Weisberg was the mother and primary caregiver for her two young children, Sharon and David.
- Her son, David, died at seven weeks old from a massive intracranial hemorrhage caused by two skull fractures.
- An autopsy of David revealed he had previously suffered a chip fracture in his leg and fractures to four ribs, which occurred weeks before his fatal head injuries.
- Weisberg's daughter, Sharon, had previously suffered a broken leg and a chip fracture in her knee.
- Weisberg consistently explained the injuries to both children by claiming they had hurt themselves in their cribs.
- Weisberg admitted to an acquaintance that she had previously beaten Sharon until she was red when Sharon was five months old.
- Multiple medical experts testified that the severe injuries to both David and Sharon were highly unlikely to be self-inflicted and were characteristic of 'battered-child syndrome'.
Procedural Posture:
- Muriel Weisberg was charged by information with the murder of her son, David Weisberg, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
- Weisberg pleaded not guilty and waived her right to a jury.
- Following a non-jury trial, the trial court found Weisberg guilty of murder in the second degree.
- The trial court sentenced Weisberg to state prison.
- Weisberg filed a timely notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal.
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 evidence showing a pattern of severe, non-accidental injuries inflicted upon an infant, combined with prior injuries to another child in the defendant's care, constitute sufficient proof of implied malice to sustain a conviction for second-degree murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Fourt, J.
Yes. A conviction for second-degree murder is supported by sufficient evidence of implied malice where the circumstances of the killing demonstrate an abandoned and malignant heart. The court found that malice does not require an actual intent to kill but can be implied from an intent to cause serious bodily injury. The evidence of David's multiple, severe injuries inflicted over time, including skull fractures, broken ribs, and a leg fracture, was ample to warrant the conclusion that Muriel Weisberg acted with at least the intent to inflict serious injury. The court also held that evidence of prior injuries to the other child, Sharon, was properly admitted to show a 'peculiar or characteristic behavior pattern' which tended to identify Weisberg as the perpetrator and to rebut her claims that the injuries were accidental.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of the 'battered-child syndrome' concept to establish the element of implied malice in a murder prosecution. It affirms that a pattern of abuse, demonstrated by a combination of old and new injuries inconsistent with the caregiver's explanation, can be powerful circumstantial evidence of the mental state required for murder. The decision also reinforces the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence, not to prove propensity, but for the specific purpose of identifying the perpetrator and negating a defense of accident. This strengthens the ability to prosecute child abuse homicides where direct evidence or eyewitness testimony is often absent.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Weisberg