People v. Ripley

William Ripley (defendant) and Mary Ripley were pursuing the adoption of their 15-month-old foster child. One day, the child had to be rushed to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with shaken-baby syndrome. The child had been shaken so violently that the veins in his brain had torn. Due to the brain trauma, the child had paralysis on his right side and suffered slight mental retardation. At first, William, who weighed 337 pounds, indicated to the police that the injuries to his foster son were caused by a fall. After the officer told William that the cause of the child’s injuries resulted from being shaken violently, William acknowledged that he had shaken the child. At trial, William testified that he took hold of his foster son in the shower when he began to fall and in pulling the child back, the child’s head snapped back. On cross-examination, however, William acknowledged shaking his foster son, insisting that he had not been angry at the time and had not shaken the child violently. William stated that it was not his intention to harm his foster son, and that he did not even know that harm could be done by shaking him. However, a witness testified that on the day the child was shaken, Mary told her that she and William had placed the child in the shower to punish him for misbehaving. A jury determined that William was guilty of aggravated battery of a child. Eleven witnesses testified on William’s behalf at his sentencing hearing, and he apologized for injuring his foster son and indicated that he did not intend that result. Although the judge considered the mitigating evidence, he determined that merely giving William probation did not match the severity of William’s actions. William was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration. William moved for reconsideration, which was denied. William appealed, arguing that the state had not demonstrated that he acted with knowledge or intent to cause the child severe bodily harm or that he even knew that harm could be done to the child by shaking him. William also argued that the trial judge improperly weighed the mitigating factors and incorrectly treated William’s intention as an aggravating factor. Yet the judge had explained that because William intended to shake the child, he also intended the extreme injuries that were the natural result of the violent shaking.