Cavazos v. Smith

565 U.S. 1 (2011)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cavazos v. Smith

United States Supreme Court
565 U.S. 1 (2011)

Facts

In November 1996, Tomeka Glass, the mother of seven-week-old Etzel, put Etzel to sleep on the sofa. Tomeka went to sleep in another room while her mother, Shirley Ree Smith (defendant) slept on the floor next to Etzel, along with Etzel’s two siblings. Hours later, Shirley ran into Tomeka’s room, holding a lifeless Etzel. Etzel died before emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived. Shirley told the EMTs that she thought Etzel had fallen off the sofa. Initially, doctors believed Etzel died from sudden-infant-death syndrome (SIDS), but after an autopsy, the coroners concluded that it was shaken-baby syndrome (SBS). When Smith learned of that finding, she said that when Etzel had not responded to her touch, she gave him “a little shake, a jostle” to wake him. Smith was interviewed by police and stated that she had shaken Etzel, then arrested and charged with assault on a child resulting in death. At trial, the state (plaintiff) offered three experts who testified that Etzel died of SBS. The first opined that the brain bleeding Etzel experienced was consistent with shaking but that Etzel did not experience retinal hemorrhaging, which is common with SBS, and that his death was likely the result of tearing of the brainstem due to severe shaking, which results in little bleeding; the second stated that Etzel’s cause of death was direct trauma to his brainstem; and the third testified that Etzel’s injuries were consistent with SBS. The defense offered two experts: the first stated that Etzel suffered brain trauma but that it was not due to SBS given the lack of retinal hemorrhaging and was likely due to old trauma, and the second opined that Etzel died of SIDS. The jury found Smith guilty. Smith moved for a new trial, which the court denied. Smith’s conviction was affirmed on appeal, with the court of appeals finding that the evidence, although conflicting, was resolved by the jury. The California Supreme Court denied review. Smith then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude that Etzel died from SBS. The district-court judge denied the petition. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that there was insufficient evidence to determine the cause of Etzel’s death because there were no witnesses and there was no evidence in his brain of the cause of death. The state petitioned for certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership