Garten v. Commonwealth

1

JULIE KAROLE GARTEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

No. 0258-23-3

Court of Appeals of Virginia

May 21, 2024

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRY COUNTY James R. McGarry, Judge

Lauren Brice, Assistant Public Defender (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

Allison Mentch, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares Attorney General; John Beamer, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Beales, O'Brien and Raphael Argued at Lexington, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

MARY GRACE O'BRIEN, JUDGE

Following a bench trial, Julie Karole Garten was convicted of felony child endangerment and reckless driving and sentenced to 3 years and 12 months' incarceration, all suspended. On appeal, Garten challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for child endangerment.^[1] She further contends that the court erred by permitting the Commonwealth to cross-examine her about her prior involvement with Child Protective Services. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND^[2]

On November 30, 2021, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Henry County Sheriff's Deputy Robert Tatum observed a car "driving all over the road." Garten was later identified as the driver, and her child was in a car seat in the back.

Tatum who was off-duty and driving his personal truck, saw Garten's car "swerving, braking, turning [its] headlights on and off" and driving "into oncoming traffic." He called 911 and reported that the car almost struck him "three or four times" and nearly "hit the guardrails several times." Tatum noticed the child in the back seat and followed the car into the parking lot of a Kia dealership, where it sat with its hazard lights activated and headlights flashing. Garten then drove to a nearby convenience store and paused by the gas pumps for "a minute or so" before pulling back onto the road.

Responding to the 911 call, Virginia State Police Trooper Luke D'Albero arrived at approximately 2:15 a.m. and found Garten's car "stopped in the middle of" the road. D'Albero spoke with Garten and observed that she was very "argumentative" and "erratic." She slurred her speech and was "either not willing or unable to answer the majority of [his] questions." At trial, Tatum confirmed that Garten was "[v]ery erratic and could not answer [questions]." D'Albero arrested Garten for public intoxication after approximately 45 minutes on the scene.^[3]

Another officer took Garten's child from the car seat and stayed with the child until a representative from Child Protective Services arrived. When a CPS employee met with Garten in jail later that day, Garten was belligerent and refused to provide basic information such as the child's name or date of birth.

Garten testified in her defense that she took her child out for a drive to help him sleep, which had worked "many times" in the past. She stated that the car was not hers and it began to malfunction as she drove, which caused the lights to flicker. She claimed that she immediately put on her hazard lights and denied that she "almost hit" Tatum's truck. Instead, as Garten told the court, she only switched lanes once to pull into the Kia dealership parking lot. Garten testified that she noticed Tatum's truck behind her and believed he may have been there to help, but she "hauled out of there" when no one got out of the truck. According to Garten, she went to the convenience store for gas and saw bags over the pumps; when she left to find another store, D'Albero pulled behind her. Garten denied using drugs or alcohol that night and claimed that she "may have come [across] as erratic" because D'Albero made her nervous and the truck had been following her.

Garten volunteered that she "would never intentionally put [her] child in any danger" and she "would never endanger [her children's] lives." During cross-examination, the Commonwealth sought to impeach Garten with questions about her previous involvement with CPS. Garten objected and argued that the questions were not relevant because "someone doesn't have to have done anything to endanger their child to have a run-in with" CPS. The court overruled the objection, finding that Garten had "put her credibility at issue." Garten admitted that CPS had investigated her for "truancy issues" related to her other children. The court then reiterated it would only allow "evidence that would discredit" Garten's prior statement about never endangering her child's life and excluded as irrelevant any testimony concerning "truancy or some other menial issues." At that point, Garten acknowledged that CPS removed two of her other children because her home was in "poor condition" and that she had tested positive for drugs both at the time of the CPS investigation and approximately one week after the November 30 arrest.

At the close of all evidence, Garten moved to strike, arguing the evidence failed to establish that she "took a willful act that showed reckless disregard for a child's life." She argued that Tatum's testimony corroborated her claim that her car malfunctioned, and she attributed her driving behavior and demeanor with D'Albero to feeling "a little bit tired" and to the "harrowing experience" of being followed by the unfamiliar truck. The Commonwealth responded that Garten's only testimony about the car malfunction was that the lights flickered, not that any malfunction caused the car to swerve. The Commonwealth also pointed out that Tatum's testimony and 911 call contradicted Garten's claim that she only changed lanes once to pull into the dealership parking lot.

In denying Garten's motion and convicting her of both offenses, the court relied on her "actions on the road" and determined that Garten "did exactly what . . . Tatum observed." The court rejected Garten's contention that she experienced mechanical malfunctions and found that Tatum's "unattached" testimony "completely . . . impeached" her explanation. The court determined that when Garten "cross[ed] the center line," "swerve[d] into the oncoming lanes," "swerve[d] back," "nearly hit the guardrails," and drove "all over the road," she "very clear[ly]" "created the probability of a substantial risk of death or serious injury to [her] child."

ANALYSIS

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Garten contends the evidence was insufficient to prove that her actions were "willful" because she "lacked the knowledge and awareness" that her actions "would likely result in injury." Garten also argues that her actions "did not rise to the level of criminal negligence."

"When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, '[t]he judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.'" McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va.App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). "The relevant issue on appeal is, 'upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Lambert v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 510, 515 (2020) (quoting Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017)). "This deferential standard of review 'applies not only to the historical facts themselves, but the inferences from those facts as well.'" Johnson v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 79, 100 (2008) (quoting Crowder v. Commonwealth, 41 Va.App. 658, 663 n.2 (2003)). "The inferences to be drawn from proven facts, so long as they are reasonable, are within the province of the trier of fact." Id. (quoting Hancock v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 774, 782 (1991)).

Garten was convicted of violating Code § 18.2-371.1(B)(1), which required proof that (1) she committed a "willful act or omission in the care" of a child; and (2) the act or omission was "so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life."

"The term 'willful act' imports knowledge and consciousness that injury will result from the act done. The act done must be intended or it must involve a reckless disregard for the rights of another and will probably result in an injury." Barrett v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 170, 183 (2004) (quoting Code § 18.2-371.1(B)(1)). A parent's act is "willful" under the statute "if an objectively reasonable person would understand that injury to the child is likely to result." Hannon v. Commonwealth, 68 Va.App. 87, 94 (2017).

Garten admits that she voluntarily put her son in a car and took him for a ride. The evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth established that Garten was "driving all over the road," "swerving [and] braking," and driving "into oncoming traffic." She almost collided with Tatum's truck "three or four" times and nearly "hit the guardrails several times." An objectively reasonable person would understand that this reckless and dangerous driving behavior "will probably result in an injury" to her child in the back seat. Barrett, 268 Va. at 183; see also Hannon, 68 Va.App. at 94.

Garten contends that mechanical issues interfered with her ability to control the car and thus negated any "willfulness" of her driving behavior. The court rejected this factual premise and hypothesis of innocence, however, and its finding is not plainly wrong. See Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va.App. 495, 519 (2011) (en banc) (stating that "[t]he rejection of a hypothesis of innocence 'is binding on appeal unless plainly wrong'" (quoting Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 1, 12-13 (1997))). On appeal, we ask "only whether a reasonable finder of fact could have rejected the defense theories and found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Thorne v. Commonwealth, 66 Va.App. 248, 254 (2016).

Garten's testimony about her...