Bagby v. State

O.C.G.A. § 16-12-1 b 3 which prohibits a person from wilfully committing an act or omission that deprives a child of essential physical, mental, emotional or moral needs is not unconstitutionally vague.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A grand jury indicted Victoria Ann Bagby for contributing to the deprivation of a minor, in violation of OCGA § 16-12-1 b 3. Bagby filed a general demurrer and motion to quash the indictment, asserting that the statute under which she was charged is unconstitutionally vague. The motion was denied and the case was tried to the court without a jury on a written stipulation of facts. Bagby was found guilty by the trial court. She appeals to this Court to review the denial of her constitutional challenge. Finding that OCGA § 16-12-1 b 3 provides sufficient warning to a person of ordinary intelligence of the proscribed conduct, we affirm.

The stipulated facts show that Bagby’s three-year-old daughter, Micheala, suffered multiple skull fractures and life-threatening brain injuries when Bagby’s boyfriend, Randy Lee Stiwinter, struck the child in the head with his fist and shoved her head into a desk. For several months prior to that event, Bagby had observed Stiwinter exhibit aggressive behavior toward Micheala, which began as verbal abuse and then progressed into physical violence. He often told Bagby that he detested the child and threatened to harm her. During that time, Bagby observed Stiwinter “pop” Michaela on the face and legs, and he admitted to her that he had bitten the child on the arm. He would regularly take the child into the bathroom to “correct” her behavior and would remain there with her with the door closed. A week before the final injuries, Stiwinter took Michaela into the bathroom where he beat her about the face.

Bagby v. State

O.C.G.A. § 16-12-1 b 3 which prohibits a person from wilfully committing an act or omission that deprives a child of essential physical, mental, emotional or moral needs is not unconstitutionally vague.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report