Thoughts on Brenda Slaby?

[Lew]

I was thumbing through my little code book to see if there were any other crimes on the book that might fit besides child endangerment. And I started going through the homicide statutes, rememebering that we all agree she didn't murder this child, but I was just nosing through.

Here is the negligent homicide statute, which I post verbatim:

2903.05 Negligent homicide.
(A) No person shall negligently cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another?s pregnancy by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of negligent homicide, a misdemeanor of the first degree.


And, to follow that up, here are (again, verbatim) the definitions of the various degrees of culpability-

? 2901.22. Culpable mental states


(A) A person acts purposely when it is his specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is his specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature.

(B) A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist.

(C) A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.

(D) A person acts negligently when, because of a substantial lapse from due care, he fails to perceive or avoid a risk that his conduct may cause a certain result or may be of a certain nature. A person is negligent with respect to circumstances when, because of a substantial lapse from due care, he fails to perceive or avoid a risk that such circumstances may exist.

(E) When the section defining an offense provides that negligence suffices to establish an element thereof, then recklessness, knowledge, or purpose is also sufficient culpability for such element. When recklessness suffices to establish an element of an offense, then knowledge or purpose is also sufficient culpability for such element. When knowledge suffices to establish an element of an offense, then purpose is also sufficient culpability for such element.


As Lan and Reason have mentioned, there is a huge issue in this case, namely, had she left her kid unattended in the car before, and if so, how often and under what circumstances. Because if she had, then yes, we might be steering towards recklessness.

You see this idea reflected throughout the law. Take dog bites, for example. The general rule is (though it's being eroded) that the dog gets one free bite. But the second time, the dog-owner is going to be on the hook. And if it happens enough, you could face criminal penalties as well. And it's pretty easy to see why. If something happens once, you can attribute it to chance. But if it happens again and again, it starts to lose that randomness, and it creates the appearance (at least) that the person does not care about the consequences of his/her actions.

And again, it goes back to my first point- the prosecutor could have made a case here. Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when they bring a case they had zero grounds to bring in the first place; that's hardly the case here.

I think politics came into play, we'll never know but it certainly doesn't pass the smell test. And I stand by my first contention, that her background and occupation had something to do with this case disappearing.

[reason]

Was Ms. Slaby given a drug test or psychological profile? Was an autopsy done on the child?

[reason]

"A study in the online journal "Injury Prevention" revealed that during a seven year period nationwide, 82% of children who died from being left in a care were in there for less than an hour."

I want to know how long Ms. Slaby left the child in the car when buying the doughnuts.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 14, 2007 04:53 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[Lew]

Check it out, Reason, she's on administrative leave (with pay) through the rest of this school year, and she may get her job back next year (or, more than likely, they'll buy her out).

Now, regarding her contract, I am a big believer in holding to your agreement, so if she has some sweetheart deal, the school board has to honor (and they should). But....

My suspicion is that they probably did have a moral clause in that agreement, i.e. you can terminate the employee for criminal conduct.

But of course, since she was never charged in this case, you can't invoke that clause (see how it all comes full circle? Ain't politics grand?)

Of course, it's in the school's best interest to get rid of her anyway, even if it means buying her out. The bad P.R. is one thing, but more importantly, all you need is to have a child injured and to have that injury be related to Brenda no matter how tenuously. I'm assuming that, in her role, she didn't actually oversee any students (like a teacher does) but still, all you need is to have something happen, and then the plaintiff lawyer can go off on the Glen Este schools, look at the kind of people they employee there, blah blah blah.

[jumper69]

Lewman,

Dangerous Ordanance or Deadly weapons under the ORC really only applies to guns, explosives, etc. it does not include cars so Negligent Homicide cannot be applied here.

I can certainly see child endangerment and I do believe her actions were reckless.

I agree with reason on a lot of this......her story doesn't really work for me. She's at best irresponsible.

It seems to me like she wanted the Norman Rockwell life (SUV, McMansion, 2.5 kids, and a dog) but didn't want the responsibility or effort that accompanies it. As a result a child is dead. At worst she gets a fat payout.

Ain't justice grand!

[Lew]

Jumper-

I realize my negligent homicide thought was a stretch. Cars actually can qualify as a "weapon" in these circustances, but that's usually when they are being operated in such a manner. But I'm used to seeing prosecutors stretch laws to be more inclusive; it's much less common to see a prosecutor go the other way like he did in this case.

And I agree with you about Norman Rockwell. That interview she gave to the Enquirer really didn't help her situation (at least in my book, and apparently most others as well). Whether she meant for it to come off that way, it certainly did sound like she was worrying too much about being "Supermom" and about her job and all those things.

Now I am not a parent. Reason said he wasn't, I know Lan is. One thing my parent friends have told me that scares me is how quickly kids can disappear. They've all told me of being in line at Kroger, they go to swipe their credit card or write a check, and 5 seconds later they turn around and the kid has taken off. I guess I can see how that can occur.

But "forgetting" about a child in the car with you....I guess it "can" happen because it most certainly does. But I struggle with that one. And I'm all for giving people a second chance, but if it happens again and again, I become less forgiving (as could a jury).

[reason]

I suppose I was fortunate - I had a panicky mother who managed to keep track of 4 kids born in a span of 6 years, the first three born three years apart, me being the third.

Two of my mom's favorite stories involve ME taking off while she was looking the other way. One was at a church festival in New Alsace, Indiana. I was only three, yet I remember it clearly. I turned around and didn't see my parents. So I walked away from the festival and through a grass field that served as a parking lot. I was trying to walk to our car at the end of the field, where it was parked at the edge of a patch of trees. Along the way a group of old people stopped me, and this elderly lady kept asking me questions: "Is your name Bobby?" I said, "Noooooo". "Is your name Greg?" I said, "Nooooo." Is your name "Billy?" I said, "Nooooo." I also remember thinking, "Why doesn't this woman just ask me what my name is?"

The second time was at Fort Ancient and it was getting dark and we were getting ready to leave. I was about 7 and my bros and my cousins were in the woods at a creek at the bottom of a hill. I heard my Mom ask where they were, so I ran off to fetch them, setting Mom off in a panic when I disappeared.

In both cases, I *clearly* remember the reaction of my mom, even though in the one case I was very young. To this day she shares those stories because of the way my disappearance affected her.

I know these incidents differ from Slaby's, but they do demonstrate a huge difference in awareness. I'm at such a loss to understand Slaby.

She has further pissed me off by using the "turning to God" schpiel and saying something to the effect that "Maybe God had a reason for this happening..." Grrrrr.

[Lew]

And if I can add a follow-up to all of this:

Here is, verbatim, the Lexis sylabus in the case of State of Ohio v. Kathleen Morton, a 2000 Hamilton County child endangerment case-

OVERVIEW: Defendant and her roommate drove defendant's children to a shopping center. Defendant's roommate was tending to one of the children while the others left for the store. After tending to the child, defendant closed and locked the van and went into the store, leaving a three-week-old baby asleep in her car seat. A half-hour later, someone saw the baby in the locked van and called 911. When the responding police officers opened the van and removed the baby, her clothing was soaked with perspiration and her breathing was labored. Defendant was charged and convicted of endangering children under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. ? 2919.22. Defendant appealed the judgment, claiming that the conviction was based upon insufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. The court found that the evidence supported that defendant's actions constituted a reckless indifference to the consequences of leaving the child unattended in the van and created a substantial risk of harm to the child.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment convicting defendant of endangering children, holding that the lower court properly concluded that defendant's actions were reckless and created a substantial risk of harm to the child, and there was no prejudicial error in the manner in which the lower court conducted the trial.


The appeals court upheld the trial court by a 2-1 count, here is Justice Painter's dissent-

"The state must prove that the defendant acted recklessly. While Ms. Morton was negligent in not keeping good count of the children, and in not keeping the infant in her direct care, I am not willing to believe that she acted "with heedless indifference to the consequences," and "perversely" disregarded a known risk that her conduct would cause harm to the child."

Now I don't know the facts in the Morton case. And who's to say there are a myriad of distinguishing facts with regards to the Slaby case. But see, in Morton, the case was tried and the trier-of-fact reached its verdict accordingly. I've said all along, I'd have no problem if a jury acquitted Slaby. I really wouldn't have a problem if a grand jury failed to return an indictment (though that would blow me away how they couldn't). But the charge should have been brought. And cases like Morton undermine Don White's argument completely (not that it needed undermining, it's a weak argument to begin with).