Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that sufficient evidence supported Edward Smith’s conviction for risk of injury to a child under General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 53-21(1). The court concluded that expert testimony was not required for jurors to determine that a young child’s potential ingestion of crack cocaine posed a risk to the child’s health. The court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment and remanded with direction to affirm the trial court’s judgment as to that conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant violated General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 53-21 (1) by wilfully creating a situation that posed a risk to the child's health when crack cocaine was within the child's reach.
- Whether expert testimony was required to establish that oral ingestion of crack cocaine could injure the health of a small child.
Holdings
- Expert testimony was not required because the harmful effects of orally ingesting cocaine were within the ordinary knowledge and experience of a typical juror.
- The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant wilfully created a situation likely to injure the child's health by keeping a potentially dangerous quantity of crack cocaine within the reach of a one-year-old child.
- The cumulative force of the evidence and reasonable inferences supported the jury's guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key quotations
“Under the situation portion of § 53-21 (1), the state need not prove actual injury to the child. Instead, it must prove that the defendant wilfully created a situation that posed a risk to the child’s health or morals.” (at 211)
“Although expert testimony may be helpful in many instances, “it is required only when the question involved goes beyond the field of ordinary knowledge and experience of the trier of fact.”” (at 211)
“Accordingly, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the child’s placement on the bed in close proximity to the cocaine made it likely that the child would grasp the wrapped cocaine and, with or without removing the foil, place it in his mouth.” (at 217)
Factual background
Police executing a search warrant at the defendant's apartment found Smith in a bedroom with an infant or child estimated to be no more than one year old sitting approximately one foot away on the same bed. Between Smith and the child, officers found a foil packet containing 0.6 grams of crack cocaine, an amount potentially divisible into six or seven adult doses, along with packaging materials, lactose, and a BB pistol. The State presented testimony about crack cocaine's customary method of consumption and effects, and the jury convicted Smith of risk of injury to a child.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Smith of risk of injury to a child and the lesser included offense of possession of narcotics. The Appellate Court affirmed the narcotics conviction but reversed the risk-of-injury conviction, concluding that the evidence was insufficient without expert testimony concerning the harmful effects of orally ingesting crack cocaine. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification, reversed the Appellate Court as to the risk-of-injury conviction, and remanded with direction to affirm the trial court's judgment.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed only as to the risk-of-injury conviction, and the case was remanded to that court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court.