State v. Edmunds
229 Wis. 2d 67, 1999 Wisc. App. LEXIS 699, 598 N.W.2d 290 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'utter disregard for human life' element of first-degree reckless homicide is determined by an objective standard, focusing on the inherent dangerousness of the defendant's conduct and the totality of the surrounding circumstances, particularly the victim's vulnerability, rather than the defendant's subjective awareness of specific catastrophic consequences.
Facts:
- On October 16, 1995, seven-month-old Natalie was delivered to Audrey Edmunds's house for child care by Natalie's mother.
- Natalie was fussy and crying upon arrival, and continued to cry and refused her bottle after her mother departed.
- Around 8:00 a.m., Edmunds placed Natalie in a bedroom with a propped bottle and left the room to dress her own daughters.
- At approximately 8:35 a.m., Edmunds returned to the bedroom and found Natalie limp and unresponsive.
- Edmunds called 911 at 8:41 a.m., and rescue personnel arrived shortly thereafter.
- Natalie was flown to University Hospital, but doctors were unable to save her, and she died that night.
- An autopsy and medical testimony revealed that Natalie died from severe head injuries, including extensive retinal hemorrhaging and tears, scalp bruising, and extensive subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages, consistent with 'extremely vigorous shaking' and 'severe force' akin to an automobile accident or falling from a second-story window.
- There was no evidence suggesting that Natalie's severe injuries could have been the result of an accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Audrey Edmunds was charged with first-degree reckless homicide, pursuant to § 940.02, Stats., in the circuit court (trial court).
- A jury in the circuit court convicted Audrey Edmunds of first-degree reckless homicide.
- Edmunds filed postconviction motions in the circuit court, which were subsequently denied.
- Edmunds, as the appellant, appealed her conviction and the order denying her postconviction motions to the Wisconsin 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:
Was there sufficient evidence to prove the 'utter disregard for human life' element of first-degree reckless homicide, considering the objective standard applied to the defendant's conduct and the victim's vulnerability?
Opinions:
Majority - ROGGENSACK, J.
Yes, there was sufficient evidence to prove the 'utter disregard for human life' element of first-degree reckless homicide, as the objective standard for this element was satisfied by the nature of Edmunds's actions and the totality of the circumstances surrounding Natalie's death. The court reasoned that the 'utter disregard' element is evaluated objectively, meaning it is not based on the defendant's subjective knowledge of specific catastrophic consequences, but rather on what a reasonable person is presumed to know about the risks of their actions. The determination requires an examination of the act itself, its nature, the perpetrator's motives, the extent of the victim's injuries, the degree of force used, the victim's age, vulnerability, and relationship to the perpetrator, and whether the totality of circumstances showed any regard for the victim's life (citing State v. Wilson and Seidler v. State). In this case, Natalie was a highly fragile and vulnerable seven-month-old infant, weighing only twenty-two pounds, entrusted to an experienced child care provider. The jury could reasonably conclude that Edmunds's actions of vigorously shaking and striking Natalie, causing injuries comparable to a severe automobile accident, evinced an utter disregard for the child's life. Edmunds's subsequent call to 911, while a positive act, did not negate the prior violent conduct in the jury's assessment. The court also affirmed the circuit court's discretionary decisions regarding the admission of a prior bad act (striking another child with a book) to rebut Edmunds's defense of being a 'good and patient' caregiver, the exclusion of evidence regarding the parents' demeanor as not relevant or potentially confusing, the removal of a juror for discussing the case prior to deliberation, and the jury instructions regarding the 'awareness' element of criminal recklessness.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the objective standard for assessing 'utter disregard for human life' in first-degree reckless homicide, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims. It emphasizes that the focus is on the inherent dangerousness of the act and the totality of circumstances, rather than requiring proof of the defendant's subjective knowledge of the precise catastrophic outcome. This objective approach reduces the prosecution's burden concerning intent and provides a clear framework for evaluating culpability in instances of severe injury or death, especially in child abuse cases. Furthermore, the opinion illustrates how a defendant's strategic defense in opening statements can open the door for the admission of 'other acts' evidence that might otherwise be deemed inadmissible.
