## Facts

- On August 3, 1982, at about 12:30 p.m., a full-term newborn male infant, estimated to be only a few hours old, was found at the side of a gravel road near Warren, Indiana.
- Police received an anonymous telephone call identifying Reed Davis and Mary Davis as the infant’s parents.
- The State used genetic testing to connect the infant to the Davises, including a tissue-typing test and blood testing across 20 separate genetic-marker systems (a “20-series” test).
- The State called Michael Conneally, a professor of medical genetics, to testify about the statistical likelihood of parentage based on the test results.
- Conneally consulted population-frequency tables accepted in the scientific community to determine how common each genetic marker was among White people in Indiana, calculated the probability of the observed test results, and then combined the probabilities.
- Conneally testified that the odds were 518,000-to-one that the infant’s parents were the Davises rather than another random couple in Indiana.
- A Huntington County grand jury returned separate indictments charging each defendant with Class D felony neglect of a dependent under Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4, alleging that each knowingly placed the newborn in a situation that may endanger his life or health by abandoning him.
- A jury convicted both Reed and Mary Davis, and the trial court sentenced each to two years executed.
- On appeal, the Davises did not dispute the underlying test results; they argued that the statistical-probability testimony was unfairly prejudicial and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1), prohibiting conduct that “may endanger” a dependent’s life or health, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendants.
2. Whether the indictments were legally sufficient to charge neglect of a dependent.
3. Whether the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony expressing statistical probabilities of parentage derived from tissue-typing and blood-test results and population-frequency tables.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support each defendant’s conviction for neglect of a dependent.

## Decision

- The neglect-of-a-dependent statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to abandoning a newborn at the side of a road.
- The indictments were sufficient because they stated the offense in statutory terms with enough identifying facts to inform the defendants of the charges.
- The trial court properly admitted Conneally’s statistical parentage testimony; its probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- The evidence was sufficient to support Mary Davis’s conviction.
- The evidence was insufficient to support Reed Davis’s conviction; his conviction was reversed, while Mary Davis’s conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute does not involve First Amendment activity, a vagueness challenge is evaluated based on the statute as applied to the defendants’ conduct, not on hypothetical borderline applications.
- Statutory language barring conduct that “may endanger” a dependent’s life or health gives adequate notice when applied to plainly dangerous conduct such as abandoning a newborn by the roadside.
- An indictment is generally adequate if it substantially follows the statutory language and includes enough information (such as the nature of the offense, the dependent involved, and the time and place) to allow preparation of a defense and to prevent a second prosecution for the same act.
- Expert testimony based on accepted scientific testing and recognized population-frequency tables may include statistical probability calculations when relevant; objections that jurors may give the numbers too much weight usually go to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility.
- Proof of biological parentage, even if strong, does not by itself establish neglect; the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant, individually, knowingly or intentionally placed the dependent in a dangerous situation (and that the defendant had the required relationship to the child, such as care, custody, or control, or participated in the endangering conduct).

## Conclusion

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the neglect-of-a-dependent statute was valid as applied to the roadside abandonment of a newborn and that the charging instruments and the State’s statistical parentage testimony were properly permitted at trial. It affirmed Mary Davis’s conviction because the evidence allowed the jury to find she knowingly placed the infant in a situation that may endanger his life or health, but it reversed Reed Davis’s conviction because the evidence did not sufficiently show his knowing participation (or the necessary custody/control connection) in the abandonment beyond the parentage proof.


Davis v. State, 476 N.E.2d 127 (1985)