Law v. State
Arkansas Supreme Court
292 S.W.3d 277 (2009)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Geneva Law’s house was condemned as unsafe, and Geneva went to live with her sister. However, both sisters were elderly, and Geneva had cognitive issues that prevented her from being able to care for herself. Because Geneva’s sister was also unable to care for Geneva, the state’s adult protective services were called for help. The state (plaintiff) located Geneva’s son, Warren Law (defendant). Warren grudgingly agreed to take Geneva to his home, where he lived with his sister, Mary Law (defendant). The state then closed Geneva’s case. However, four years later, a paramedic responded to a call at Warren’s house. The paramedic and other officials who eventually responded noted the strong smell of rotting flesh and filth at the house and on Geneva. The house was covered in feces, urine, trash, and mold. Geneva’s body was soaked with urine and feces, and Geneva was laying on plastic trash and a soaked bed. Ants and cockroaches were crawling on Geneva and around the room. Geneva was malnourished and had bedsores so severe that her spine was visible through one sore on her back. Geneva also had multiple infections, significant bruising all over her body, and a brain injury. Some of Geneva’s injuries were inconsistent with falls and consistent with physical trauma or abuse. Geneva was immediately hospitalized, but she died a month later. Warren and Mary were both convicted of criminally neglecting Geneva. Warren appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that (1) Geneva was impaired, (2) he was her caregiver, or (3) he had neglected her.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wills, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.