Hannah Wesche

Full title: STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, v. LINDSAY PARTIN, Appellant.

Court: COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY

Date published: Sep 28, 2020

Facts

Hannah Wesche, a 3 year and 2-month old babysitter, was hospitalized with a traumatic brain injury on March 8, 2018, and never recovered. Her father, Jason Wesche, dropped her off with Partin, who later called him to report something was wrong with Hannah. Hannah had multiple bruises, and hemorrhages in both eyes, and a CT scan revealed a large subdural hemorrhage. Doctors and investigators suspected that Hannah’s injuries were nonaccidental.

Partin was indicted on six counts, including felony endangering children, involuntary manslaughter, and murder. The matter proceeded to a jury trial in April 2019, where Partin claimed that Hannah had just “passed out.” An EMT, Evan Reedy, arrived at Partin’s residence, and Hannah was unresponsive and unresponsive. Dr. Ahn Quan Nguyen treated Hannah, and Dr. Marguerite M. Caré reviewed Hannah’s CT scans, finding a large subdural hemorrhage causing the mid-line of her brain to shift over to one side of her skull. Dr. Caré concluded that the most likely cause of the subdural hemorrhage was trauma, not everyday accidents.

Dr. Michael Yang examined Hannah’s eyes, finding them extensively hemorrhaged. Dr. Ranjit Chima testified that Hannah’s neurological condition deteriorated while in the ICU, and after three days, she was progressing toward brain death. On March 18, 2018, Hannah was pronounced deceased.

Furthermore, Dr. Dorothy Dean performed Hannah’s autopsy, revealing “tremendous” hemorrhages in her eyes and brain swelling. Dr. Dean opined that Hannah’s cause of death was a traumatic brain injury due to a blunt, tremendous force that went through her brain.

Issue

Decision

Partin argues that if this court determines that the errors that occurred in her trial were harmless, then the cumulative effect of all the errors deprived her of a fair trial and her conviction should be reversed. For the reasons discussed in response to Partin’s first through sixth assignments of error, this court does not find error in Partin’s trial and does not find that she was deprived of a fair trial. This court overrules Partin’s seventh assignment of error.

Judgment affirmed.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three × 4 =