context: Courts have held that a fact finder is rational in deciding that the starvation of a child can constitute an act of commission and omission.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 237 P.3d 474, 524-25
citation_a.parenthetical: describing the "prolonged and purposeful" starvation of child as a "deliberate act," and finding evidence sufficient to uphold defendant's conviction for first-degree murder involving infliction of torture
citation_a.sentence: See People v. Jennings, 50 Cal.4th 616, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 133, 237 P.3d 474, 524-25 (2010) (describing the “prolonged and purposeful” starvation of child as a “deliberate act,” and finding evidence sufficient to uphold defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder involving infliction of torture); see also Fairchild v. State, 998 P.2d 611, 621 n. 17 (Okla.Crim.App.1999) (op. on reh’g) (describing willfully starving a child as one of several examples of “acts which result in injury or death but do not require force”); Commonwealth v. Cottam, 420 Pa.Super. 311, 616 A.2d 988, 1004 (1992) (describing parents’ conduct in providing inadequate sustenance to children as “acts of commission and omission” that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, and upholding defendants’ convictions for reckless endangerment of another person on that basis).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: describing parents' conduct in providing inadequate sustenance to children as "acts of commission and omission" that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, and upholding defendants' convictions for reckless endangerment of another person on that basis
citation_b.sentence: See People v. Jennings, 50 Cal.4th 616, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 133, 237 P.3d 474, 524-25 (2010) (describing the “prolonged and purposeful” starvation of child as a “deliberate act,” and finding evidence sufficient to uphold defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder involving infliction of torture); see also Fairchild v. State, 998 P.2d 611, 621 n. 17 (Okla.Crim.App.1999) (op. on reh’g) (describing willfully starving a child as one of several examples of “acts which result in injury or death but do not require force”); Commonwealth v. Cottam, 420 Pa.Super. 311, 616 A.2d 988, 1004 (1992) (describing parents’ conduct in providing inadequate sustenance to children as “acts of commission and omission” that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, and upholding defendants’ convictions for reckless endangerment of another person on that basis).