Preview:

Kurt Nichols Andrews v. State of Maryland No. 101, September Term 2000 HEADNOTE: EVIDENCE; RELEVANCE; DEMONSTRATIONS; DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE; TESTIMONY; INFANTICIDE; SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME Before admission of demonstrative evidence, the party seeking its introduction for the purpose of explaining testimony and assisting the trier of fact has the burden of establishing the substantial similarity between the in-court demonstration and the events it purports to depict.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 101 September Term, 2000

KURT NICHOLS ANDREWS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia JJ.

Opinion by Bell, C.J.

Filed:

November 14, 2002

The petitioner, Kurt Nichols Andrews, was arrested and tried, in the Circuit Court for Montgom ery County, for the death of h is infant daughter, Kristin Andrews, 1 which, it was alleged, was ca used b y "Shak en Ba by Syndro me." Shaken Baby Syndro me is characterized by violent acceleration and deceleration f orces being applied to a n infant, w hose hea d is disproportio nately heavy, whose neck muscles are weak, and whose brain is unmyelinated and soft, makin g it more su sceptible to trau ma. The p etitioner was found not guilty of second degree d epraved heart mu rder, involuntary manslaughter, and ch ild abus e. He was convicted, however, of reckless endangerment, for which he was sentenced to a term of five years impriso nmen t. After unsuccessf ully appealing his conviction to the C ourt of Special Appeals, the petitioner filed a petition for W rit of Certiorari with this Court, which we granted. Andrew v. State, 362 Md. 34, 762 A.2d 968 (2000). In this Court, the petitioner argues that the trial court erred by allowing a demonstration, using a doll that did not have the same characteristics as the infant child alleged to have been shaken, to be conducted before the jury for the purpose of showing the amount of force necessary to cause an injury associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome, and by permitting the expert witness, called by the responde nt, the State of Maryland, to testify on the basis of that demonstration. We agree. Accordingly, we shall reverse. I. As acknowledged by the State, the facts of the case sub judice are largely undisputed.

There seems to be a discrepancy in the spelling of the victim's name. For the sake of con sistency, w e will ref er to the v ictim as " Kristin."

1

Kristin Andrews w as born prematurely, at a gestational age of 23

Download Andrews v. State.pdf

Maryland Law