MoreLaw Helps People Find Lawyers

In early July of 2016, TJ was born to Christina Pritchard (“Pritchard”) and

Clark. Clark voluntarily admitted to paternity and received visitation with TJ

every week on his day off from work and again from Saturday morning until

Sunday night. By the end of August, the visitation schedule had been adjusted

to allow TJ to stay with Clark and his mother, Gidgette Hall (“Hall”), for

extended periods of time. This change was intended to allow TJ to spend more

time with Hall, who was terminally ill.



1 IND. CODE § 35-46-1-4.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1136 | January 31, 2019 Page 3 of 9



[4] Eight-week old TJ went to stay with Clark at his house for a week, beginning

on August 30th. On the morning of September 2nd, Clark “saw this lump . . . the

size of [his] pinky . . . on the side of [TJ’s] head.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 15). He took

TJ to Hall, who “started to freak out.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 15). Hall then called TJ’s

pediatrician, Dr. Rachel Woods (“Dr. Woods”), to schedule an appointment

for later that day.

[5] Clark and Hall accompanied TJ to Dr. Woods’ office. Dr. Woods performed

an examination and found TJ very fussy. When she examined TJ’s head,

“there was a squishiness to it,” and she saw that “the skull could possibly be

fractured.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 60). She also saw “a bruise on his right cheek.” (Tr.

Vol. 2 at 60). Dr. Woods questioned Clark about the head injury, but Clark

initially stated that he did not know what had happened. Dr. Woods asked

Clark what happened a second time, and he stated that “TJ was laying on a bed

and then perhaps something hit him.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 60).

[6] Dr. Woods referred TJ to Columbus Regional Hospital for an emergency CT

scan of his head. The CT scan revealed that TJ suffered from “a right parietal

fracture and then a hematoma in the brain.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 62). Following the

CT scan, Dr. Woods flagged TJ’s case for possible child abuse and contacted

the Department of Child Services (“DCS”). DCS initiated an investigation and

TJ was transferred to Riley Hospital for Children (“Riley Hospital”) for further

care.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1136 | January 31, 2019 Page 4 of 9



[7] Pritchard, who met Clark, Hall, and TJ at Columbus Regional, rode in the

ambulance with TJ to Riley Hospital. After arriving at Riley, Pritchard called

Clark and asked him to explain what had happened to TJ. Clark told her that

he had tripped over the dog and dropped TJ onto a mattress.

[8] The Riley Hospital doctors diagnosed TJ with a fractured skull and soft tissue

swelling, both of which are indicators of possible trauma in a non-mobile

infant. They then ordered TJ to undergo an MRI, which revealed bleeding on

the surface of his brain. Based on the nature of the injuries, Riley Hospital

social worker, Jennifer Benson (“Social Worker Benson”), was notified. Social

Worker Benson completed a full psycho-social assessment of TJ and then spoke

with the emergency room physicians and the neurosurgeon. Together, they

concluded that TJ’s injuries were not consistent with Clark’s claim that TJ was

dropped on a mattress. They then decided to make another report to DCS to

ensure an investigation occurred outside of the hospital.

[9] At approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 2nd, DCS family case manager,

Stephanie Clephane (“Case Manager Clephane”), received a call from the child

abuse hotline. Thereafter, she requested assistance from the Brown County

Sheriff’s Office and Deputy Brian Shrader (“Deputy Shrader”) was assigned to

the case. Clark voluntarily participated in an interview with Case Manager

Clephane and Deputy Shrader.

[10] Initially, Clark explained that he had no idea what had happened to TJ. He

acknowledged that he was TJ’s sole caregiver from August 30th until the time of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1136 | January 31, 2019 Page 5 of 9



the injury. Clark eventually stated that on the night of September 1st, he was

walking to put TJ in his bassinet when his dog jumped on him causing him to

fall. He explained that he then threw TJ onto the bed, and he landed in a

“crevice” between his mattress and the wall of his bedroom. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 106).

Clark further explained that he had heard a “thud” after throwing TJ, but TJ

did not cry at all. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 101). Clark then checked TJ over and saw no

signs of injury. After the interview, Case Manager Clephane conducted a home

visit. During this visit, she took photographs of Clark’s bedroom and did not

find a crevice between the mattress and the wall.

[11] TJ was discharged from Riley Hospital on September 3rd but was readmitted

one day later. During the second admission, TJ was seen by Dr. Shannon

Thompson (“Dr. Thompson”), a general pediatrician who also specializes in

child abuse pediatrics. Dr. Thompson performed a physical examination of TJ

and observed that he had bruising on his right temple, his right cheek, his lower

right buttock, and small abrasions under his chin. She also reviewed TJ’s

records from his previous hospital stay. Dr. Thompson noted that, while skull

fractures ordinarily cause blood to pool directly underneath the injury, in TJ’s

case, blood was present elsewhere in his brain. She concluded that TJ

experienced some form of trauma and that the injuries were the result of a

single impact. Based on her experience, she believed that TJ “was a victim of

non-accidental trauma or abuse.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 222).

[12] The State charged Clark with Level 3 felony domestic battery resulting in

serious bodily injury to a person less than fourteen years old and Level 3 felony

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1136 | January 31, 2019 Page 6 of 9



neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury. The trial court

conducted a three-day jury trial. Dr. Woods, Case Manager Clephane, Deputy

Shrader, Pritchard, Social Worker Benson, Dr. Thompson, and TJ’s maternal

grandmother, Tonya Jackson, testified to the facts above for the State.

[13] Clark testified on his own behalf. He stated that as he was going to put TJ into

his bassinet, his dog jumped up, and he tripped over the dog. Clark further

explained that as he fell to the ground, his “first reaction” was to toss TJ on the

bed. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 19). When Clark got up, he found TJ “in the crevice of –

between . . . – the wall and [his] mattress.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 19). On cross

examination, Clark acknowledged that “throwing a 56[-]day old child” would

endanger the child. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28).

[14] Dr. Andre Lloyd (“Dr. Lloyd”), a bio-mechanical engineer with a PhD in

pediatric head injuries, also testified on behalf of Clark. Dr. Lloyd reviewed all

of TJ’s medical records, the police report, and the DCS interview. He testified

that he believed TJ’s head injury was the result of a “single impact event.” (Tr.

Vol. 3 at 54). He further explained that he did not believe TJ’s injury had

occurred the way Clark had stated. Specifically, Dr. Lloyd concluded that the

“characteristics tell you that . . . the tossing on the bed wasn’t . . . [the] abrupt

event.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 54-55).

[15] The jury found Clark guilty of neglect of a dependent, and not guilty of

domestic battery. The court then sentenced Clark to ten (10) years in the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1136 | January 31, 2019 Page 7 of 9



Department of Correction, with six (6) years suspended to probation. Clark

now appeals.

Decision

[16] On appeal, Clark challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his Level 3

felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury conviction. Our

standard of review for sufficiency of evidence claims is well-settled. We do not

assess the credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence in determining

whether the evidence is sufficient. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.

2007). We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences

supporting the verdict. Id. Reversal is appropriate only when no reasonable

fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable

doubt. Id. The evidence is not required to overcome every reasonable

hypothesis of innocence and is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be

drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147.

[17] Clark does not dispute that he was in a position of care concerning TJ at the

time he was injured, nor does he contest the fact the TJ suffered serious bodily

injury. Instead, Clark argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish

that he knowingly placed TJ in a situation endangering TJ’s life or health

resulting in serious bodily injury.

[18] To obtain a conviction for neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily

injury, a Level 3 felony, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that Clark had the care of a dependent and knowingly placed the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1136 | January 31, 2019 Page 8 of 9



dependent in a situation endangering the dependent’s life or health resulting in

serious bodily injury. I.C. § 35-46-1-4. A person engages in conduct knowingly

if, “when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is

doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b).

Under the child neglect statute a ‘knowing’ mens rea requires a subjective awareness of a ‘high probability’ that a dependent had been placed in a dangerous situation. Because, in most cases, such a finding requires the factfinder to infer the defendant’s mental state, this Court must look to all the surrounding circumstances of a case to determine if a guilty verdict is proper.



Pierson v. State, 73 N.E.3d 737, 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (internal citations and

quotations omitted), trans. denied.

[19] Here, the jury heard evidence that TJ was not injured in the manner described

by Clark, specifically that TJ hit his head on a mattress. Three of the State’s

witnesses explained that, at the least, it was extremely unlikely that TJ’s skull

fracture resulted from falling on a bed. Additionally, Clark’s own witness, Dr.

Lloyd, testified that “the tossing on the bed wasn’t . . . [the] abrupt event.” (Tr.

Vol. 3 at 54-55). In addition to the skull fracture, TJ also had significant

bruising on his right temple, right cheek, and right buttock. Dr. Thompson

believed all of TJ’s injuries were the result of a single impact. In further

contrast to Clark’s explanation for TJ’s injuries, Dr. Thompson stated that TJ’s

injuries were caused by “non-accidental trauma or abuse.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 222).

Dr. Woods similarly believed the most likely cause of the injuries was due to

“[s]ome sort of trauma.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 62). Importantly, Clark, the only adult

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1136 | January 31, 2019 Page 9 of 9



present in the bedroom when TJ sustained his injuries, acknowledged that

“throwing a 56[-]day old child” would endanger the child. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 28).

Based on all the evidence, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Clark

was aware of a high probability that he placed TJ in a dangerous situation by

throwing him. See, e.g., Dexter v. State, 945 N.E.2d 220, 224 (Ind. Ct. App.

2011) (affirming neglect conviction of defendant who, despite being warned not

to do so by defendant’s mother and child’s mother, threw a wet three-year-old

child into the air above a bathtub, failed to catch the child, and child sustained

fatal head trauma after hitting the tub), trans. granted, summarily aff’d in relevant

part, 959 N.E.2d 235, 237 (Ind. 2012). Accordingly, we hold that the evidence

was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Clark knowingly placed

TJ in a situation endangering TJ’s life or health resulting in serious bodily

injury.

Affirmed