Opinion
A-14093 0388
09-11-2024
CEDAR MAE SARTEN, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Lindsey Bray, Assistant Public Defender, and Terrence Haas, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Kayla H. Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Trial Court No. 4FA-20-01241 CR Fairbanks, Maria P. Bahr, Judge.
Lindsey Bray, Assistant Public Defender, and Terrence Haas, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Kayla H. Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges.
Cedar Mae Sarten was convicted, following a jury trial, of reckless endangerment for twisting the neck of her young child. Sarten appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction.
AS 11.41.250. The State did not introduce the actual age of the child into evidence, but both the prosecutor and Sarten's counsel stated in their opening statements that the child was sixteen months old at the time of the offense, and the witnesses variously testified that the child appeared to be about one year old, seventeen to eighteen months old, or between one and three years old.
When we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we are required to view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. The evidence is sufficient if "a reasonable fact-finder could have concluded that the State's case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 702 (Alaska App. 2008).
Id.
The incident underlying the conviction occurred while Sarten was in an exam room at the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital emergency room for a mental health issue. A nurse took Sarten's vitals while an emergency department technician held Sarten's child and two police officers watched from the doorway. All four witnesses testified that Sarten then went to the child, put her hands on either side of his head, and jerked or twisted the head of the child. All four witnesses believed that the child was in danger of serious physical injury.
On appeal, Sarten argues that the video taken by the body camera of one of the police officers, which was admitted into evidence, contradicts the testimony of the State's witnesses and that, after viewing the video, no reasonable juror could conclude that Sarten recklessly endangered her child. But we have viewed the video and, viewing it in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the video is consistent with the witnesses' testimony that Sarten placed her hands on either side of the infant's head and jerked or twisted it. We therefore conclude that sufficient evidence supported Sarten's conviction for reckless endangerment.
On appeal, Sarten argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to establish the child's "actual age or fragility at the time the incident occurred to support its theory of Sarten's recklessness." But the jury could reasonably rely on the testimony of the witnesses and its review of the video to determine that Sarten's child was vulnerable to serious physical injury from Sarten's conduct.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.