AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Miranda Kuykendall, was convicted of negligently permitting child abuse resulting in the death of her son B.K. and negligently permitting child abuse not resulting in the death or great bodily harm of her son T.C. The abuse occurred while the children were in the care of the Defendant's boyfriend, Chris Elliot, who later pleaded guilty to crimes related to the death of B.K. and the abuse of T.C. Evidence presented at trial included prior instances of abuse by Elliot, the Defendant's awareness of the abuse, and the presence of drugs in B.K.'s system at the time of his death (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction for negligently permitting child abuse resulting in the death of B.K., challenged the jury instructions, claimed violation of her confrontation rights due to expert scientific testimony, contended a clerical error on the verdict form constituted reversible error, and disputed the district court's designation of her child abuse convictions as "serious violent offenses" under the EMDA (paras 6-7, 11, 21, 27, 30).
• Appellee (State): Defended the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, the admissibility of expert testimony under the confrontation clause, and supported the district court's designation of the offenses as serious violent offenses under the EMDA (paras 7, 11, 21, 27, 30).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for negligently permitting child abuse resulting in the death of B.K.
• Whether the jury was properly instructed.
• Whether expert scientific testimony violated the Defendant's confrontation rights.
• Whether a clerical error on the verdict form constituted reversible error.
• Whether the district court erred in designating the Defendant's convictions as "serious violent offenses" under the EMDA (paras 6-7, 11, 21, 27, 30).

Disposition

• Affirmed the Defendant's conviction as to B.K.
• Reversed the district court's serious violent offense designation and remanded for the district court to consider the evidence and enter appropriate findings.
• Directed the district court to correct a clerical error on Defendant’s judgment and sentence (para 39).

Reasons

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The court found sufficient evidence supporting the Defendant's conviction, noting her awareness of the risk posed by leaving her children with Elliot (paras 7-10).
  Jury Instructions: The court held that the jury was properly instructed, rejecting the Defendant's arguments for lesser included instructions and challenges to the instructions given (paras 11-20).
  Confrontation Clause and Expert Testimony: The court found no violation of the Defendant's confrontation rights in the admission of expert testimony regarding B.K.'s autopsy and toxicology results (paras 21-26).
  Clerical Error on Verdict Form: The court determined that the clerical error on the verdict form did not constitute reversible error, interpreting the verdict in the context of the instructions given to the jury (paras 27-29).
  Serious Violent Offenses Designation: The court reversed the district court's designation due to insufficient factual findings to support the decision and remanded for further findings (paras 30-37).