State v. Goff – Oregon
Facts
Goff was living with her two children, aged eight years and 22 months respectively, and two other adults. Goff and the other adults left the children alone in the home while attending a Halloween party at a tavern several blocks away. The eight-year-old child was watching television in the living room and the 22-month-old child was asleep in the back bedroom. Goff claimed that the older child was able to use the telephone and Goff left the phone numbers of the tavern and a neighbor with the child. The tavern closed and Goff returned to her house to find it filled with heavy smoke. Both children died from asphyxiation. The adults in the house were cigarette smokers and the fire marshal testified that there were ‘matches lying around and candles around.’ Although the cause of the fire was not explained, the fire marshal testified that in his opinion the fire began in the back bedroom and that the fire started from an open flame brought into the area.
Goff was convicted by a district court jury of child neglect. The Court of Appeals reversed because it found no substantial evidence to support the verdict. Child neglect was statutorily defined as: A person having custody or control of a child under 10 years of age commits the crime of child neglect if, with criminal negligence, he leaves the child unattended in or at any place for such period of time as may be likely to endanger the health or welfare of such child.
Issue
- How is criminal negligence determined?
Holding and Rule of Law
- Criminal negligence is determined from the totality of the circumstances. Criminal negligence occurs when a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that hazardous circumstances exist. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
In analyzing the child neglect statute, it is helpful to separate the statute into two segments. ‘Leaves the child unattended in or at any place for such period of time as may be likely to endanger the health or welfare of such child,’ refers to the physical factual elements of the crime. The other section of the statute, which refers to ‘criminal negligence,’ involves the mental state or culpability of the defendant.
For a defendant to be guilty of the crime of child neglect there must be sufficient admissible evidence of both the physical and mental segments (mens rea) of the statute. The period of time the child was left unattended is relevant to the physical factual elements of the crime. As for the mental aspects, the words in the criminal negligence statute ‘fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists’ also are not time restricted. The statute encompasses the state of mind of a defendant throughout the time the child is left unattended.
A determination of child neglect is based on a totality of the circumstances in respect to both the factual element and the culpability element of the crime.
The Court of Appeals majority held that evidence of where the mother was and that she was drinking was not probative of any fact essential to a conviction but that it was not reversible error to admit the evidence because ‘[a] jury cannot be expected to understand a case tried in a vacuum. Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This disputed evidence was relevant, and any prejudice to Goff was significantly outweighed by the probative value of the evidence.
The state must show that the defendant failed ‘to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists.’ The fact that the defendant went to a party at a tavern is directly relevant to the justifiability of the risk. A jury cannot answer the question, ‘was it justifiable for the defendant to leave her children unattended?’ without knowing why defendant left. Therefore, the evidence of defendant’s conduct and whereabouts was properly submitted to the jury.
The fact that the mother had eight or nine beers that evening goes directly to her awareness of the risk. The defendant testified that she was affected by the alcohol and was ‘feeling good.’ A jury could find that as the defendant consumed more alcohol, her awareness of the risk to her children decreased. Therefore, admission of evidence as to her whereabouts and her conduct was proper.
Disposition
Judgment reversed and the trial verdict reinstated.