## Facts

- Mary B. Davis lived with her elderly, senile, totally disabled mother, Emily B. Carter, in Carter’s home and assumed sole responsibility for her care.
- Davis had no other occupation, shared Carter’s Social Security benefits, and acted as Carter’s food stamp representative, controlling resources intended for Carter’s support.
- On November 29, 1983, paramedics found Carter in a cold room with no heat; a tin heater was present but not operating.
- The home contained minimal food (two cans of soup, a can of juice, and an open box of macaroni and cheese); trash cans behind the house contained numerous empty vegetable cans and many empty beer cans.
- Davis’s upstairs bedroom contained an operable stove, firewood, and a color television.
- At the hospital, Carter had a body temperature of 80°F, was dehydrated, and was diagnosed with severe malnutrition and bilateral pneumonia, along with other serious injuries and infection.
- Carter died on December 2, 1983; an autopsy attributed death to pneumonia and freezing due to exposure to cold with a chronic state of starvation, any one of which could have been fatal.
- Davis was convicted in a bench trial of involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence in failing to provide heat, food, liquids, and other necessities; two autopsy photographs not produced in discovery were admitted at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Davis owed Carter a legal duty (not merely a moral obligation) to provide necessities of life.
2. Whether Davis’s omissions constituted criminal negligence sufficient to support involuntary manslaughter.
3. Whether admitting undisclosed autopsy photographs was reversible error.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the involuntary manslaughter conviction.
- The court held Davis had a legal duty of care arising from a contract implied in fact based on her assumption of total caregiving responsibility and use of Carter’s benefits.
- The court held the evidence supported criminal negligence—reckless, wanton, or flagrant conduct showing callous disregard for human life—causing Carter’s death.
- The court held admission of the undisclosed autopsy photographs was not an abuse of discretion absent a showing of prejudice to the defense.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal liability for homicide may be based on an omission when the defendant had a legal duty to act, imposed by law or contract.
- A legal duty to provide care can arise from a contract implied in fact where a person assumes responsibility for an incapacitated individual and controls or benefits from that person’s resources.
- When death results from failure to perform a legal duty, the offense may be murder if the omission is malicious, or involuntary manslaughter if malice is not shown.
- Involuntary manslaughter requires criminal negligence, not ordinary negligence; the conduct must be so reckless, wanton, or flagrant as to show callous disregard for human life.
- In reviewing sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and a conviction is reversed only if plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.
- A discovery violation does not require reversal or exclusion of evidence absent a showing that nondisclosure prejudiced the defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an involuntary manslaughter conviction based on a caregiver’s omission where the defendant’s assumed responsibility and use of the victim’s benefits supported an implied contractual duty, the prolonged failure to provide heat and nourishment met the criminal-negligence standard, and the late-disclosed autopsy photographs did not warrant reversal without demonstrated prejudice.


Davis v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 201, 335 S.E.2d 375 (1985)