People v. Maynor

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that, assuming first-degree child abuse is a specific-intent crime, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer the requisite intent for that crime. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that first-degree child abuse is a specific-intent crime. Rather, I believe the trial court was correct in its conclusion that first-degree child abuse is a general-intent crime, and I would affirm on that basis.

*247I. THE REASONING IN GOULD, SHEKMAN-HUFFMAN, AND LERMA

The first-degree child abuse statute provides that “[a]…