State v. Scruggs
Connecticut Supreme Court
905 A.2d 24 (2006)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Judith Scruggs (Scruggs) (defendant), a single mother, held two jobs and worked 60 hours a week to support herself and her two children, one of whom was 12-year-old Daniel Scruggs (Daniel). The family’s apartment was so cluttered that one could barely move from room to room or shut the bathroom door for privacy. The apartment was filthy and smelly, but at least it was free of rats. Daniel, a physically and emotionally troubled child, exhibited strange behavior, such as sleeping in his bedroom closet, and was notorious for poor personal hygiene. At school, Daniel suffered constant bullying and frequently skipped school. Social workers were aware of Daniel’s problems and checked out his living quarters; nevertheless, they closed Daniel’s file. Just days later, Daniel hanged himself in his closet. Police investigators reported on the squalid conditions they found at the scene of Daniel’s suicide. The report led the State of Connecticut (plaintiff) to prosecute Scruggs for violating a statute that prohibited willfully placing children in situations likely to injure their physical or mental health. The jury found Scruggs guilty, and the trial court denied Scruggs’s motion for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict. Scruggs appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.
