# Pearson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · March 13, 1992 · 601 So. 2d 1119

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937366

## Case

- **Full name:** Feordis Pearson and Annette Pearson v. State.
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** March 13, 1992
- **Citations:** 601 So. 2d 1119; 1992 WL 92523
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Montiel
- **Judges:** Bowen, Montiel
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937366

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying Ex parte McCall and Ex parte Webb

## Opinion text

The crucial issue in this case is whether the injury to the child was foreseeable under the facts of this case. The evidence showed that the appellants were aware of the continued presence of ants in the apartment and that they took no precautionary measures to protect the four-day-old infant on his first night in the home. Furthermore, the appellants failed to "exercise reasonable diligence" in preventing the infant from being seriously injured when they placed the child in a closed room and did not monitor the child throughout the night.
Parents must take responsibility where the child is of such a tender age and condition that the child is unable to protect itself from harm. The legislature intended to punish such conduct criminally when it enacted the offense of endangering the welfare of a child.
The majority is incorrect in its conclusion that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendants.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the appellants' conviction. *Page 1130

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937366. Public record. Not legal advice.