People v. Jennings
Supreme Court of Colorado
641 P.2d 276 (1982)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
John Jennings (defendant) was convicted by a jury for child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury to Jennings’s four-month-old daughter, Christina, under a state statute that prohibited the cruel punishment of a child. At trial, the evidence showed that Jennings was tending to a fussy and crying Christina at home and attempting to put Christina down for a nap when he became frustrated and slapped her on the head with an open hand. As a result, Christina stopped breathing, lost oxygen to her brain, and suffered severe brain damage and blindness. Jennings admitted that, although he did not intend to harm Christina, the slap caused serious bodily injury. However, Jennings argued that the slap did not constitute felony child abuse under the statute prohibiting cruel punishment, which required that a defendant knowingly, intentionally, or negligently, and without justifiable excuse, cause or permit a child to be cruelly punished. Jennings was found guilty by the jury. Jennings subsequently filed a motion for a new trial and renewed his pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment. The trial court granted Jennings’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the cruel-punishment language used in the criminal statute prohibiting child abuse was unconstitutionally vague.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dubofsky, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.