concluding that “the knowing exposure of a dependent to an environment of illegal drug use poses an actual and appreciable danger to that dependent and thereby constitutes neglect regarding the endangerment requirement of the offense,” in a case where the appellant provided his daughter with marijuana and smoked it with her, the daughter observed him smoking marijuana and intravenously injecting a white substance, and the daughter found hypodermic needles stashed in the kitchen.
How later courts described this case
- concluding that “the knowing exposure of a dependent to an environment of illegal drug use poses an actual and appreciable danger to that dependent and thereby constitutes neglect regarding the endangerment requirement of the offense,” in a case where the appellant provided his daughter with marijuana and smoked it with her, the daughter observed him smoking marijuana and intravenously injecting a white substance, and the daughter found hypodermic needles stashed in the kitchen.
- holding that "knowing exposure of a dependent to an environment of illegal drug use poses an actual and appreciable danger to that dependent and thereby constitutes neglect regarding the endangerment requirement of the offense"
- noting, in a criminal neglect case, that the purpose of the statute is “protection of the physical well-being of dependents” and “there was no evidence presented that the active ingredient in marijuana is addictive or harmful to the health”
- the defendant's knowing exposure of dependent to an environment of illegal drug use posed danger to the dependent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
Appellant and his wife, being father and mother of Danielle, age ten years, were charged pursuant to I.C. 35-46-1-4 in two counts with placing Danielle in a situation that endangered her life and health. In Count I, it was charged that they did place her “in an environment of frequent drug use." In Count II, it was charged that they did place her in a situation that endangered her life and health by providing her with marijuana and smoking marijuana with her.
The daughter testified that she loved her parents and that they loved her. She also *838 testified in support of the charges that her parents smoked marijuana sometimes, but not all the time. She described them as not getting “really real high where they acted real crazy, and that they usually acted normal.” She testified further that on two or three occasions, her parents asked her if she wanted to try a marijuana cigarette, that she said yes, and that she was then permitted to do so. On the first occasion, she took only one puff, and on the later occasions, more than one. She stated that she did not notice anything happening to her after puffing the cigarette. There was no evidence presented that the active ingredient in marijuana is addictive or harmful to the health. Indeed, the welfare worker implied that it was not and that the danger to children from living where there is heavy addictive drug usage stems from the addiction of the parent and its consequent placing of self-interest over the interest of the dependent.
The daughter also testified that she saw her father inject himself once or twice with something white and that her mother said it was speed. He usually made her leave the room when getting ready to use the syringe. She saw her mother inject herself once at a friend’s house while they were visiting to celebrate Thanksgiving. The daughter was never given any of the white substance and did not use the needles. There was actually insufficient evidence that the substance being injected by appellant and his wife was a narcotic drug or even a controlled stimulant, or that either of the parents was addicted. The father worked part-time as a house painter and the mother worked full-time in a barbecue restaurant. There was no evidence that either parent failed to provide the daughter with food, clothing, or shelter, or mistreated her in any way. There was no evidence that the parents’ use of marijuana and needles brought the child into contact with violence or danger from non-family members using or trafficking in drugs. There was insufficient evidence that the use by the parents of marijuana, their injection of white material they called speed, and the experimentation by the daughter on two or three occasions was such as to create an actual and appreciable danger to the child’s life or health as is essential to both Counts I and II. State v. Downey (1985), Ind., 476 N.E.2d 121 .
I read the provision of the criminal statute pursuant to which these charges were brought as having as its goal the protection of the physical well-being of dependents and not their moral well-being. If there is a crime here by the parents, it was encouraging their daughter, a minor, to commit an act of delinquency in violation of I.C. 35-46-1-8. Because the State’s proof is lacking, these convictions for endangering physical well-being should be reversed.
SHEPARD, C.J., joins as to Count I. I would affirm Count II.