Background
De-Shawnay Daniels provided respite care for B.C., an eight-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who could not walk, talk, eat, or move independently. B.C.’s mother testified that the child had no injuries when she entered Daniels’s care on June 21, 2024. When B.C. returned three days later, she was crying and was subsequently diagnosed with extensive skin injuries and a fractured leg.
The State’s child-abuse expert attributed B.C.’s skin injuries to poor hygiene, testified that they would have been visible during appropriate checks, and opined that the fracture was likely caused while B.C. was being maneuvered during respite care. The defense expert characterized a disputed skin injury as a contact burn likely caused by a seat belt. A jury convicted Daniels of endangering a child by violating a duty of care under R.C. 2919.22(A) and by abuse under R.C. 2919.22(B)(1). She received concurrent 60-day jail terms and appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District held that sufficient evidence supported both convictions. Viewed in the State’s favor, the evidence permitted a rational jury to find that Daniels had custody and control of a medically fragile child, breached her duty to provide appropriate care, and recklessly created a substantial risk to the child’s health or safety. The child’s dependence on Daniels, the visibility of the skin injuries, and the evidence concerning improper handling supported an inference of heedless indifference to substantial and unjustifiable risks.
The court separately concluded that the evidence supported the abuse count because the jury could find that Daniels’s reckless conduct caused physical injuries harming B.C.’s health or welfare. It also rejected Daniels’s manifest-weight challenge. Although the experts offered competing explanations and testimony reflected uncertainty about aspects of the injuries’ cause, the jury was entitled to assess their credibility and accept the State’s evidence. The appellate court found no indication that the jury clearly lost its way and affirmed the Canton Municipal Court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Recklessness under Ohio’s child-endangerment statute may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances; proof of an intent to injure is unnecessary.
- The duty-of-care and abuse provisions required proof of different conduct: creating a substantial risk by breaching a caregiving duty and recklessly causing an injury that harmed or threatened the child’s welfare.
- Competing expert explanations did not make the verdict unsupported or against the manifest weight of the evidence because resolving credible evidentiary conflicts was the jury’s role.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how circumstantial and expert evidence can establish recklessness when a caregiver has exclusive responsibility for a profoundly dependent child who develops significant injuries during a short period of care. It also emphasizes the distinction between legal sufficiency and manifest-weight review.
For appellate practitioners, the opinion reinforces that presenting a plausible alternative cause of injury ordinarily will not secure reversal when the jury heard both sides and the State’s evidence reasonably supports the convictions.