## Facts

- Robertson, an Air Force servicemember, had his teenage son Brad visit during Brad’s 1988 spring break.
- Brad had been overweight but developed anorexia and bulimia after learning he could lose weight by vomiting and not eating.
- While Brad stayed with Robertson, Robertson took him to a doctor for evaluation.
- The doctor believed Brad looked healthy but recommended that Brad return for a follow-up checkup within about a month.
- Brad did not return for the follow-up appointment and continued losing weight while in Robertson’s care.
- Brad did not fully inform Robertson about the severity of his self-starvation and vomiting.
- After a few months, Brad returned to his mother’s home.
- Brad was found dead in his sleep on his first night back, due to cardiac failure stemming from starvation associated with his eating disorder.
- The government charged Robertson with involuntary manslaughter on an omission theory, alleging that as Brad’s parent he failed to obtain necessary medical care and that this failure amounted to culpable negligence causing death.
- A court-martial convicted Robertson of involuntary manslaughter, and he appealed, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove culpable (criminal) negligence for involuntary manslaughter based on a parent’s failure to obtain further medical care, where the parent had obtained an initial medical evaluation and the child concealed the severity of his condition.

## Decision

- The United States Court of Military Appeals reversed Robertson’s involuntary manslaughter conviction.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to show culpable negligence—i.e., a gross deviation from reasonable parental conduct under the circumstances.
- The court relied on evidence that Robertson sought medical care for Brad and received a medical assessment that Brad appeared healthy, making it unreasonable to treat the failure to pursue additional care as criminally negligent on this record.
- The court also relied on evidence that Brad concealed the extent of his eating-disorder behavior, limiting what Robertson actually knew (or could be expected to know) about the seriousness and immediacy of the danger.
- A concurring opinion agreed that criminal liability could not rest on omission where the parent lacked actual knowledge of a deteriorating condition requiring further action.
- A dissent would have affirmed, reasoning that Brad’s weight loss was sufficiently obvious that a reasonable parent should have sought additional medical attention despite the earlier medical visit.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary manslaughter may be based on an omission only if the accused had a legal duty to act and the failure to act amounted to culpable (criminal) negligence.
- Culpable negligence requires more than ordinary negligence; it involves a gross deviation from the care a reasonable person with the same duty would use, creating a reasonably foreseeable risk of death or serious bodily harm.
- When a caregiver seeks medical evaluation and receives a professional assessment indicating no apparent immediate danger, that fact can weigh against finding culpable negligence for not pursuing further treatment.
- A victim’s concealment of symptoms or behavior can affect whether the accused had sufficient notice of a grave risk, and lack of such notice can defeat proof of culpable negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

United States v. Robertson held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robertson’s failure to obtain additional medical care for his son was culpably negligent where Robertson had taken Brad to a doctor who believed Brad looked healthy and Brad concealed the severity of his eating disorder; the Court of Military Appeals therefore set aside the involuntary manslaughter conviction.


United States v. Robertson, 37 M.J. 432 (1993)