## Facts

- John Jennings lived with his wife, their four-month-old daughter Christina, and his three-year-old stepson.
- After leaving work early due to illness, Jennings went home and dismissed the babysitter caring for the children.
- Christina was “fussy” and continued crying despite Jennings’s efforts to soothe her, check her diaper, and feed her.
- Jennings struck Christina once on the head with his open hand; he testified he did not intend to punish or hurt her and did not think about the risk of serious injury.
- Christina stopped breathing for a time, suffered brain damage, and developed blindness and arrested mental development.
- Jennings stipulated that Christina’s injuries constituted “serious bodily injury” under the applicable statute.
- Christina later died, but the prosecution at issue charged child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, not homicide.

## Issues

1. Whether the child-abuse statute’s prohibition on causing a child to be “cruelly punished” was unconstitutionally vague under due process.
2. Whether inclusion of alternative culpable mental states (“knowingly, intentionally, or negligently”) in the same provision rendered the statute unconstitutionally vague.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the charge on vagueness grounds.
- The court held the phrase “cruelly punished,” read in statutory context and informed by common usage, gave adequate notice and enforceable standards.
- The court held the mental-state terms “knowingly, intentionally, or negligently” were sufficiently definite because each is defined within Colorado’s criminal code and understood in criminal law.
- The case was remanded for a new trial because the trial court had separately granted a new trial on jury-instruction grounds, and the prosecution did not challenge that ruling on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute is void for vagueness only if persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning or if it authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
- Statutory language must be evaluated in context; courts may construe a statute to preserve constitutionality when consistent with legislative intent.
- “Cruelly punished,” as used in a child-abuse statute, can provide constitutionally adequate notice when it has a generally understood meaning and targets serious abusive conduct rather than reasonable parental discipline.
- A statute may lawfully specify alternative culpable mental states (intentional, knowing, or negligent) when those mental states have established legal definitions that provide workable standards for adjudication.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that the child-abuse statute was not unconstitutionally vague as to either “cruelly punished” or the alternative mental states, reversed the dismissal of the charge, and remanded for a new trial based on an unchallenged instructional ruling.


People v. Jennings, 641 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1982)