## Facts

- Muriel Rita Weisberg cared for the two children she had with her husband, Gerald Weisberg: Sharon (born November 11, 1964) and David (born March 1, 1966).
- David died in a hospital on April 19, 1966, at about seven weeks old.
- An autopsy found David died from a massive intracranial hemorrhage caused by two skull fractures, which produced brain contusions and lacerated blood vessels; doctors also found multiple rib fractures and a prior chip-fracture to a leg.
- In March 1966, a neighbor (Mrs. Slocum) noticed a bruise on David’s head; Weisberg said David got it by striking his head on the side of the crib.
- Another witness (Mrs. Banker) observed David with extensive bruising and swelling around the eye and head; Weisberg again explained that David had hit his head on the crib, and she repeated that account to Gerald and to a police officer.
- Sharon had a broken leg; Weisberg told Slocum and others that Sharon broke it by getting her leg caught in the crib.
- Slocum also testified Weisberg said Gerald needed a part-time job “because of that little bitch,” referring to Sharon.
- A witness (Mrs. Turney) testified Weisberg said she had beaten Sharon when Sharon was about five months old “until Sharon was red,” and that on another occasion Sharon went to the hospital after Weisberg gave her too much sedative.
- Turney described finding Sharon lying in her own vomit; Weisberg refused to pick her up, saying Sharon was “just throwing a tantrum.”
- Medical testimony (including from the deputy medical examiner who performed the autopsy) indicated David’s skull injuries and other fractures could not have been self-inflicted by an infant; the evidence also supported that the fractures were not the result of ordinary childhood mishaps.
- Weisberg was charged with David’s murder, pleaded not guilty, and was tried to the court (nonjury trial). The court found her guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced her to state prison.
- Weisberg appealed, arguing primarily that the evidence did not show malice and that evidence about Sharon amounted to inadmissible other-crimes evidence.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by admitting evidence of Sharon’s injuries and Weisberg’s prior mistreatment of Sharon in Weisberg’s trial for David’s homicide?
2. Was there substantial evidence of malice aforethought to support a second-degree murder conviction, rather than an accidental death or a lesser homicide?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction for second-degree murder.
- The court held the evidence about Sharon’s injuries and Weisberg’s mistreatment of Sharon was properly admitted because it showed a distinctive behavior pattern and tended to identify Weisberg as the person responsible for David’s nonaccidental injuries, rebutting accident.
- The court held substantial evidence supported a finding of malice aforethought for second-degree murder, based on the nature and extent of David’s injuries, the medical testimony that the injuries were not self-inflicted or accidental, and the surrounding circumstantial evidence.
- Applying the substantial-evidence standard, the court declined to reweigh conflicting testimony or reassess witness credibility.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of other acts or misconduct is inadmissible when offered only to show disposition, but it may be admitted for a proper purpose such as proving identity, intent or state of mind, common plan, or absence of accident, when the evidence logically tends to prove a fact at issue.
- In a prosecution involving fatal injuries to an infant, medical testimony that injuries are inconsistent with accidental causes, together with evidence of repeated trauma, can support an inference that a caretaker inflicted the injuries.
- Malice for second-degree murder may be implied from conduct that shows a wanton disregard for human life, including the intentional infliction of serious injury on a helpless victim.
- On appeal, a conviction will be upheld if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, there is substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

People v. Weisberg affirmed a bench-trial conviction of second-degree murder for the death of a seven-week-old infant, holding that evidence of the defendant’s mistreatment of the child’s sibling and the sibling’s injuries was admissible to show a distinctive behavior pattern and to negate accident, and that the medical and circumstantial evidence of repeated, severe, nonaccidental injuries supported implied malice.


People v. Weisberg, 265 Cal. App. 2d 476, 71 Cal. Rptr. 157 (1968)