THE FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Transcription

1 THE FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE Petitioner JUV. CASE NO vs. TRINITY CARR Respondent STATE OF DELAWARE Petitioner JUV. CASE NO vs. ZION SNOW Respondent 1

2 STATE OF DELAWARE Petitioner JUV. CASE NO vs. CHAKIERA WRIGHT Respondent DECISION This sad case from its beginning in April, 2016 has touched the lives of many in this community and evoked many emotions. This is understandable. I do however ask those in the courtroom today to please curtail any emotional outbursts as my decision is issued, out of respect for the memory of Amy Joyner- Francis. On the morning of April 21, 2016, Amy Joyner-Francis entered the Howard High School of Technology for another school day, much like any other school day, expecting to attend class, hang out with friends and return home to her family that afternoon, much like she would do on every other school day. But as the evidence has shown, this was not to be normal school day and she would not return home to her family. Trinity Carr is charged with Criminally Negligent Homicide and Conspiracy 3 rd Degree in the death of Amy Joyner-Francis. Zion Snow and Chakeira Wight are charged are each charged with Conspiracy 3 rd Degree. The State alleges that Trinity Carr committed Criminally Negligent Homicide in that on the 21st day of April, 2016 in the County of New Castle, State of Delaware, she did with criminal negligence cause the death of Amy Joyner- Francis. 2

3 Unlike a trial in Superior Court before a jury, in the Family Court, the judge must not only determine the law applicable to the case, but also act as the fact finder making the findings of fact and apply those findings to the law as to whether the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the individuals charged committed the offense and thereby rendering a decision, the Court s verdict. To this end, I have carefully taken into consideration all the evidence in this case, both testimonial exhibits, although I may only touch on some of the evidence today. I will therefore turn first to the law applicable to this case. 11 Del C. 631 Criminally Negligent Homicide; class D felony. A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, the person causes the death of another person. 11 Del C. 231(a defines criminal negligence as follows: a person acts with criminal negligence with respect to an element of an offense when the person fails to perceive a risk that the element exists or will result from the conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in this situation. Trinity Carr - Criminally Negligent Homicide On the charge of Criminally Negligent Homicide, the first question the Court must answer is whether the death of Amy Joyner-Francis was caused by Trinity Carr. Dr. Sekula-Pearlman, the Deputy Delaware State Medical Examiner established the immediate cause of death as sudden cardiac death due to large atrial septal defect with a contributing cause of emotional and physical stress due to physical assault. Amy's congenital heart defect, atrial septal defect coupled with pulmonary hypertension created the dangerous condition known as Eisenmenger Syndrome, a condition where the avoidance of physically and emotionally stressful situations 3

4 are medically recommended when that condition is diagnosed. Respondent s expert cardiologist, Dr. Ringel, did not dispute Dr. Pearlman's conclusion that the stress from the attack on April 21, 2016 was a contributing cause of Amy Joyner- Francis's death. A criminal act in a case as this was complete when a respondent sets in motion with the required state of mind, the chain of conduct and events resulting in the death of Amy Joyner- Francis. For there to be criminally negligent homicide, the death must be the natural and probable consequence of the unlawful act and not the result of intervening causes. The natural and probable consequence of a physical attack on an individual is physical and emotional trauma which may, depending on the particular circumstances of the victim, result in varying degrees of physical harm, up to in its most severe degree, the death of the victim. While it may be true that Amy Joyner-Francis, due to her condition would have died from a multitude of stressors, until such an event occurred, if at all, she had a right to live one more day, one more week, one more month or year, until her time, without a contributing cause of another. In this case, the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of Amy- Joyner Francis was caused by the action of Trinity Carr. Next, it must be determined whether Trinity Carr, in causing the death of Amy Joyner- Francis acted with criminal negligence, that is, did she fail to perceive that her conduct created a risk of death and that her failure to perceive such a risk was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in this situation. The attack on Amy Joyner-Francis, had known potential consequences, risks. I purposely use the word "attack," because that is what the evidence established; not a fight between two teenagers squaring off to settle some mutual grievance, but rather, an act of violence initiated and carried out by Respondent Carr over a perceived slight on social media. She struck the first blow without warning, carried on the relatively brief, but clearly violent attack, which included closed fist punches to the upper torso and face to the a kick to the face while Amy's hair was being pulled and had to be to be pulled off her victim who throughout the altercation tried vainly to protect herself. A physical assault on another carries with it intended consequences that is to injure the victim. What other purpose does a physical assault have other than to inflict 4

5 injury? While the extent of that injury may not specifically be intended or contemplated, the risk nevertheless exists. The attack carried out by Trinity Carr in the close confines of the school bathroom stall posed risk of potential catastrophic physical harm including death by virtue of the tile floor, walls and fixtures. Had a death resulted from internal bleeding after striking her head on the floor would that result in any way changes the risk that the assault itself created? Clearly this question must be answered in the negative. It is within the realm of contemplation that a physical assault intended to cause injury could in fact result in death; that is death was clearly a risk of respondent's conduct. The defense correctly points out that it is a matter of first impression in Delaware whether the reasonable person standard used in assessing criminal culpability should take into consideration the age and experience of the teenage Respondent. Significant evidence was presented through the testimony of Dr. Lawrence Steinberg, a renowned expert in the field of adolescent developmental psychology relating to the fact that adolescents are more impulsive, myopic and more focused on potential rewards those on potential costs of their decisions. According to Dr. Steinberg, adolescents are less likely than adults to understand risk, less likely to be aware of the potential negative repercussions of engaging in risky behavior, and less likely to consider longer-term consequences of the decisions they make when there are risks involved. Consideration of age has long been recognized in determining what is a "reasonable person" in civil law and is a factor recognized in this state in many areas of criminal law including amenability to rehabilitation and competency to stand trial. The United States Supreme Court in abolishing the death penalty for juveniles as well as life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole recognized the propriety of taking into account juvenile brain development and cognitional changes.it is altogether appropriate that the court gives some consideration to a respondent s age in assessing behavior when compared to the "reasonable person" standard in criminally negligent homicide cases. The defense presented statistics from the Center for Disease Control 2016 Report on Youth Risk Behavior during Year 2015 regarding the small percentage of Delaware high school students in reported fights, 15.9%, and smaller number, 5

6 2.9% of females who were injured in reported fights to support the contention that a reasonable person of Respondent s age and experience would not expect injury much less death to result from a fight and therefore her failure to perceive such a risk is not a gross deviation from the standard of care that such a reasonable person of like age would observe in this situation. The beauty of statistics lies in the eye of every beholder. Do not the same statistics support the conclusion that 84.1% of high school students in Delaware do not engage in fights because to do so would be outside of the appropriate standard of conduct for a high school student of similar age? I find that to be the case. The defense introduced into evidence the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District parent-student code of conduct citing its provisions that fighting may result in disciplinary action ranging from suspension up to expulsion or referral to law enforcement, for the proposition that a reasonable student can only be expected to contemplate that the risk of a fight is school disciplinary action. The defense is wrong in this regard. The school district handbook contains no representation as to what risk a fight may pose; only what administrative disciplinary punishment may be received by the perpetrator of such conduct. The "reasonable person" standard is a concept borrowed from civil law. A reasonable person, according to Restatement (Torts 283 Comments c,d is a fictitious person who was never negligent and whose conduct is always up to the standard. Even reasonable 16-year-olds have standards. Trinity Carr s attack on Amy Joyner-Francis and her failure to perceive the risk of death from that attack, the evidence has established beyond a reasonable doubt, was a gross deviation from that standard. As such, she has committed the offense of Criminally Negligent Homicide and will be so adjudicated. Conspiracy in the third degree 6

7 11 Del C. 511 Conspiracy in the Third Degree; class a misdemeanor. A person is guilty of conspiracy in the third degree when, intending to promote or facilitate the commission of a misdemeanor, a person: (1 Agrees with another person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct constituting the misdemeanor or an attempt or solicitation to commit a misdemeanor; or (2 Agrees to aid another person or persons in the planning or commission of the misdemeanor or an attempt or solicitation to commit a misdemeanor, and the person or another person with whom the person conspired commits an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy. The Court finds that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Trinity Carr and Zion Snow committed conspiracy in the third degree. On April 20, Amy Joyner-Francis met with Trinity Carr and Zion Snow in an attempt to defuse what Amy believed was a misunderstanding on the part of Trinity that Amy had insulted her with the reference to "switching up." Zion Snow posts pictures of her sneakers, teen parlance for preparing for a fight. She posts on social media that "we gonna get her she's scared". The next morning, April 21 they are together in the cafeteria along with their friend, Chakeira Wright, before class. Chakeira Wright phones her cousin asking if Amy has arrived at school yet. Trinity Carr, Zion Snow and Chakeira Wright then leave the cafeteria and find Amy in the hall. They follow Amy Joyner-Francis into the girls room. As Amy and Trinity exchange words, a crowd of girls gather. Without warning Trinity throws a punch that begins the assault. Throughout her attempt to defend against the blows from Trinity Carr, Amy Joyner-Francis never dropped her bag. As Trinity Carr is pulled off of Amy Joyner-Francis, Zion Snow, confirming her "we gonna get her" statement, in the Snapchat video of the day before, kicks Amy Joyner Francis who is on her back on the floor. Regarding Chakeira Wright, she was present in the cafeteria with Trinity Carr and Zion Snow the morning of April 21, and accompanied them down the hall, engaged in whatever conversation occurred with Amy Joyner-Francis in the 7

8 hallway, and together went into the bathroom. These actions on her part can be construed as consistent with engaging in conspiratorial conduct with the other two respondents. They need not be however, especially where not supported by other damaging evidence. While the evidence does in fact established that she made the call the morning of the 21st inquiring as to whether Amy was yet in school, nothing threatening can be drawn from that conversation and it apparently did not raise any questions in anyone's mind. There is no evidence that she made any threats and toward Amy Joyner-Francis. She was not dressed in a manner indicative of one intending to fight, indeed, she never took off her large hoop earrings. In the restroom video, unlike Trinity Carr who is the principal attacker, and Zion Snow who is seen kicking Amy Joyner-Francis while she is down, Chakeira Wright is shown pulling Trinity Carr off of Amy Joyner-Francis. The standard to which the State is held in order to prove its case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." I cannot find that the State has met its burden of proof with regard to Chakeira Wright. She will therefore be adjudicated as not delinquent on this charge. ` Robert Burton Coonin, judge 8