United States v. Christopher Carlson

MEMORANDUM

Christopher Alan Carlson appeals his conviction for endangering the person or health of a child. See 18 U.S.C. § 13 ; Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3623(B)(3). We affirm.

(1) Carlson first asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. We disagree. “[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” as we must, we hold that a “rational trier of fact” could certainly have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlson did cause or permit a child in his care “to be placed in a situation where the person or health of the child” was endangered, and that he did so with criminal negligence. The presence of evidence that could have led to a different verdict does not affect our conclusion. See Nevils, 598 F.3d at 1164-65.

(2) Carlson’s second assertion is that there was a constructive amendment of the indictment because he was charged with endangering a child “[ujnder circumstances likely to produce death or serious physical injury,” but found guilty (on a lesser included offense theory ) of endangering a child “[ujnder circumstances other than those likely to produce death or serious physical injury.” We disagree. The uncharged offense is,…