The latest Court of Appeals opinions are up. I cruised the summaries to see if there was anything blog-worthy. Nothing ground-breaking, legal-wise. Some refinement of what it means to be in possession of drugs, another case on the issue of intent to permanently deprive that's nowhere near as silly as the one I blogged on earlier.

Then I see the State v. Jason Edward Neal summary, and I just get angry. Angry that this kind of thing can happen to a three year old child, and that the person who did it has the nerve to make excuses for it.

THE FACTS
Three-year-old David Szczygielski’s mother left him in Neal’s care while she was at work. Neal became angry at David because David wet his pants and punished David by spanking him with a wooden paddle. At some point thereafter, he discovered David had also soiled his pants, and responded by pushing him into a bathroom wall. According to the Defendant (Note this is his version, not the State's):

Q. All right, So you’re done spanking and you went upstairs with the paddle; is that right? A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you put it away? A. Yes.
Q. And then what did you do? A. And then I came back downstairs to go back into –
Q. And at that point what do you see when you come back downstairs? A. The bathroom door is open. David is standing there and he’s not changing or anything like that. He’s just – he’s standing there.
. . . .
Q. Did he respond to you at all? A. He didn’t respond. He wasn’t looking up or anything at me, and I kept – I said, “David,” and then I guess as a reaction because I wasn’t getting his attention like I wanted it, I pushed. I pushed David.
Q. With both hands? A. With both hands.
Q. Where did you push him on his body? A. Like in the chest area. It wasn’t – when I pushed him, it wasn’t meant to be a push like as hard as it was or like that. It was just – you know, looking back on it, I wish I would have grabbed him by the shoulders, you know, like some people do, but I just – it was a reaction. I pushed, and he went back into the wall. And after he went back into the wall –
Q. Well, let me ask you this: When you pushed him, was it your intent to push him into the wall? A. No. My intent wasn’t for him to hit the wall. It’s what happened.
Q. What part of his body hit the wall? A. Well, I didn’t – I mean, I wasn’t back there to see, but I know his back hit the wall and then the indentation, the back of his head hit the wall.

(NOTE: An indentation in the wall?! The amount of force that implies is insane.)

"Neal then cleaned David up, dressed him, and placed him in bed. After David began vomiting and was having difficulty breathing, Neal summoned a neighbor for help. At the hospital, David’s treating physician, Dr. Dawson, “specifically asked [Neal] if [David] had had any kind of trauma of any kind . . . including spanking and falling in [his questioning].” Neal denied any trauma and said he was baking a cake when he found David lying on his bed. After offering several versions, Neal told police he pushed David into the bathroom wall.

Dr. Dawson would later testify that David was unconscious upon arrival and exhibited retinal hemorrhaging, a classic symptom of a battered child. Physicians also noted two distinct impact injuries to the back of David’s head. David also had significant bruising that extended from his lower back to the bottom of his back and covered both sides of his buttocks. Dr. Gerdes, a pediatric critical care specialist, opined that it was unlikely David would have been able to walk after sustaining such injuries. The physicians’ consensus opinion was that David’s injuries were contemporaneously inflicted.

A subsequent autopsy confirmed that David died from “blunt force trauma to the head.” The coroner determined David’s fatal injuries were caused by at least two separate impacts to the back of his head. The coroner also noted a deep laceration to the back of David’s ear, a large bruise above his right eye, defensive wounds on the back of his right hand, bruises around his neck, and considerable bruising on his buttocks that were so extensive “they actually occurred throughout the muscles of the buttock.”

THE ISSUE
The defendant argued, among other things such as ineffective assistance of counsel, that there was not enough evidence that he had malice aforethought. The Court thought otherwise:

THE ANALYSIS
"Malice may be inferred from the commission of a felony which results in death. Schrier v. State, 347 N.W.2d 657, 666 (Iowa 1984). The evidence shows that David died as a result of two traumatic blows to his head. Investigators located two indentations on the wall in the bathroom that would have been caused by the head of someone of David’s height hitting the wall with great force, and the coroner concluded that David died from two distinct impacts to the back of his head. The nature and extent of David’s injuries, as well as the force required to inflict them, are more than sufficient to establish the requisite malice aforethought for Neal’s murder conviction. See State v. Rhode, 503 N.W.2d 27, 39 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (inferring malice from defendant’s intentional slamming of child’s head against a hard flat surface causing severe head injuries); see also State v. Poyner, 306 N.W.2d 716, 718 (Iowa 1981) (finding multiple wounds supply strong evidence of malice and intent to kill). Moreover, the egregious nature of David’s other injuries further exemplifies Neal had the malice aforethought when he killed David. David’s injuries to his buttocks were so severe the physicians believed he would have likely been unable to walk; he had bruising marks around his neck, a lacerated ear, and defensive wounds on his right hand. The severity and manner of David’s injuries are clearly enough to provide substantial evidence of malice."

As I said, the Court got it right. But it really puts the rest of life in perspective somehow. I think I'll go over and play a little with my nephews (age 2 and 4) tonight.


UPDATE

The Register picks up this story.