CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Calif. — A California appeals court has ordered an acquittal on an assault charge against a mother convicted in connection with the death of her 5-week-old son, finding insufficient evidence that she committed or aided the assault and ruling that the trial judge violated state law governing jury selection.
In an Oct. 28 published opinion in People v. Northington, the First District Court of Appeal, Division Five, reversed Marilyn Northington’s convictions and directed the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal on the charge of assault on a child causing death.
The court also authorized a new trial on the remaining charges of involuntary manslaughter and child abuse.
A Contra Costa County jury had acquitted Northington of murder but convicted her of the three lesser offenses. She received a sentence of 25 years to life for the assault conviction, with punishment on the other counts stayed.
Northington appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the assault conviction, that the trial court improperly rejected an objection to the prosecution’s removal of a Black prospective juror and that the jury received an incorrect instruction on circumstantial evidence.
The appellate opinion, authored by Justice Danny Y. Chou and joined by Presiding Justice Jackson and Justice Simons, examined both the evidence presented at trial and the procedures followed during jury selection.
According to the opinion, medical testimony established that the infant suffered multiple blunt-force injuries, burns and severe neglect.
Dr. Ogan testified that the child experienced “malnutrition, emaciation, dehydration, anemia, and bronchopneumonia,” along with injuries attributed to abuse and neglect.
However, the appellate court distinguished evidence establishing that the infant suffered serious injuries from evidence proving Northington was criminally responsible for the assault.
The opinion noted that “no witness who testified before the first acquittal motion saw or knew of Northington hitting Doe.”
Prosecutors acknowledged that the identity of the person who inflicted the injuries was unknown and pursued a theory that Northington aided and abetted the assault.
The appellate court concluded that the evidence did not establish that Northington participated in the assault or knowingly assisted the person responsible.
The court found no evidence that “the mother was present at the assault or was aware to a substantial degree of certainty that the assault was occurring or about to occur.”
Although the opinion acknowledged evidence of serious neglect, the court determined that neglect alone could not establish liability for aiding and abetting the assault without evidence of the required knowledge and intent.
The court emphasized that “suspicion is not evidence; it merely raises a possibility, and this is not a sufficient basis for an inference of fact.”
Because the evidence was legally insufficient, the appellate court directed the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal on the assault charge, preventing prosecutors from retrying Northington on that count.
The court separately examined the prosecution’s removal of Prospective Juror No. 95, a Black woman, during jury selection before Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Terri A. Mockler.
Defense counsel objected under Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7, which establishes procedures intended to prevent discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges.
The prosecutor cited the prospective juror’s absence from a morning court session following a COVID-19 exposure and her discussion of the case with her daughter.
However, the trial judge excused the juror before hearing the prosecution’s explanation and completing the required review of the objection.
The judge subsequently found by clear and convincing evidence that the challenge was not based on race.
The appellate court concluded that the procedure violated Section 231.7 because the trial judge had effectively decided the objection before considering the prosecutor’s stated reasons.
By excusing the juror prematurely, the trial court “partially ruled on Northington’s objection in violation of section 231.7” and took “any available remedy off the table,” according to the opinion.
The appellate court did not determine that the prosecutor intentionally discriminated against the prospective juror. Rather, it found that the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedure required to evaluate the challenge.
The opinion also addressed the jury instructions on circumstantial evidence.
The trial court gave CALCRIM No. 225, which addresses circumstantial evidence used to prove a defendant’s intent or mental state.
The appellate court concluded that CALCRIM No. 224, the broader instruction governing circumstantial evidence, should have been given because the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish matters beyond Northington’s mental state, including her alleged participation in the assault.
The appellate court’s ruling eliminates the assault conviction and its associated 25-years-to-life sentence.
The involuntary manslaughter and child abuse convictions were also reversed, but prosecutors retain the option of retrying those charges.
The case now returns to Contra Costa County Superior Court for proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
