Here is how the court applied this rule to the facts of this case.

The states theory of causation was that Jeffery died as a result of either the combined direct effect of both Oxendine and his girlfriend’s beating of Jeffery or Oxendine’s beating of Jeffery aggravated Jeffery’s death.

To this end, the state presented two expert witness testimonies. Both witness testified that in their expert opinion, there were two distinct injuries, one caused more than twenty-four hours before the death of the child, and one inflicted less than twenty-four hours before death.

The first expert testified that in his view, it was possible that both the older and more recent injury could have contributed to the death of the child, but he was unable to tell which of the injuries caused the death of the child. The second expert on the other hand, was of the opinion that the earlier injury was the underlying cause of death. According to him, the later injury, was an aggravating, and probably some factors contributing, but it was the earlier injury that was the plain underlying cause of death.

The court took time to distinguishe contribution or aggravation from acceleration. The court explained that aggravation or contribution may make the victims pain more intense but aggravation without acceleration is insufficient to convict the defendant. That is for the defendant to be convicted of for the death of the victim, the defendant’s act must accelerate the time of the victim’s death. 

So that in the instant case, it is not enough that Oxendine’s beating may have contributed to Jeffery’s death. To find him liable, the injury must have hastened the time of death of the child.

The court explained that the State’s expert medical testimony, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was insufficient to sustain the State’s original theories of causation Both of the State’s expert witnesses, Dr. Inguito and Dr. Hameli, were unable to state with any degree of medical certainty that the second injury contributed to the death of the child. Dr. Inguito could only testify that it was possible that both the older and more recent injury could have contributed to the death of the child. As for Dr. Hameli, he testified that the second injury independent of the first injury could have caused death but probably would not cause death. Furthermore, Dr. Hameli explicitly stated that he could not give an opinion as to whether the second injury accelerated Jeffrey’s death. Similarly, Dr. Inguito was neither asked nor did he offer an opinion about acceleration.

The court further expressed that it is extremely difficult to be objective about the death of a child. Those responsible ought to be punished. Nevertheless, there must be proof as to who, if anyone, inflicted the injuries that resulted in death. And in this case, the state was not able to establish that the injury the child sustained from Oxendines beatings accelerated the child’s death.