State v. Hendricks: Affirmative Conduct as “Child Neglect” Absent Injury—North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies the Abuse/Neglect Divide

Introduction

State v. Hendricks, 2025 ND 143, presented the Supreme Court of North Dakota with two principal questions:

Whether forcing children to ingest Nyquil, alcohol, and THC gummies—without proof of resulting “injury”—can constitute child neglect under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-22.1, or whether such conduct must instead be charged exclusively as child abuse under § 14-09-22.
Whether recordings of the defendant’s non-attorney jail calls were properly admitted when authenticated by an investigating officer and not challenged on hearsay grounds at trial.

The appellant, Winston Leon Hendricks, had been acquitted of sexual-offence counts but convicted by a jury on two counts of child neglect. On appeal he attacked the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of the jail-call recordings. Justice Bahr, writing for a unanimous Court, affirmed. In doing so, the Court announced a significant clarification of North Dakota’s post-2015 child-protection scheme: the neglect statute reaches affirmative harmful conduct so long as no actual “injury” is proven; the statutory divide with “abuse” turns on the presence of injury, not on action versus omission.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Sufficiency of Evidence: Although Hendricks framed his conduct as “affirmative” rather than an “omission,” the Court held that § 14-09-22.1’s phrase “fails to provide proper parental care or control” embraces willful conduct that deliberately denies proper care—even by active means.
2. Authentication of Jail Calls: Testimony from a sergeant who had listened to and recognized both the calls and the defendant’s voice satisfied Rule 901. The Court rejected the notion that only the jail custodian could authenticate.
3. Hearsay: Because Hendricks never objected on hearsay grounds, plain-error review applied. The Court found no obvious error, noting the statements were likely opposing-party admissions under Rule 801(d)(2).
4. Outcome: Convictions and judgment AFFIRMED.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Gardner, 2023 ND 116 – Separated “abuse” and “neglect” after the 2015 legislative amendments; pivotal in showing that “abuse” requires proof of injury.
State v. Adams, 2024 ND 139; State v. Smith, 2024 ND 127; State v. Dahl, 2022 ND 212 – Address preservation of issues when Rule 29 motions present different grounds at trial and on appeal.
State v. Watts, 2024 ND 158; State v. Haney, 2023 ND 227 – Standard for sufficiency review (“light most favorable to the verdict”).
State v. Burton, 2025 ND 83 – Authentication principles under Rule 901; parallel reasoning used here for jail calls.
State v. Kennedy, 2025 ND 130 – Court’s limited sua sponte role when parties fail to object; relied upon for hearsay argument.

Legal Reasoning

1. Child Neglect Encompasses Affirmative Acts
The Court dissected the statute in concert with the culpability definitions in § 12.1-02-02. “Willfully” means acting intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Because those mental states can accompany actions or omissions, the Court reasoned that forcing excessive medication on children can be characterized as a failure to provide proper care—a deliberate substitution of harmful treatment for proper care. The key statutory line is whether mental or bodily injury was inflicted; because the State neither alleged nor needed to prove such injury, the abuse statute was not triggered and the neglect statute was appropriately used.

2. Distinction Between Abuse and Neglect Clarified
While both offences share identical culpability (“willfully”), abuse (§ 14-09-22) demands proof the child suffered mental or bodily injury; neglect (§ 14-09-22.1) does not. Thus the division is harm-based, not conduct-based. The Court explicitly rejected Hendricks’s view that the Legislature intended a bright-line action/inaction dichotomy.

3. Authentication of Recordings
Following Burton, the Court reiterated that Rule 901 requires only “evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror” to find authenticity. The sergeant’s familiarity with the defendant’s voice, prior listening to the calls, and confirmation that the exhibits were fair and accurate satisfied the rule. The Court also invoked the “official regularity” presumption for jail-call systems.

4. Plain-Error/Hearsay
Because Hendricks objected only on authentication grounds, the Court applied Rule 52(b)’s obvious-error test. Jail calls by their nature are party admissions under Rule 801(d)(2)(A); thus, no plain error existed. The Court took the opportunity, via Kennedy, to remind trial courts not to intervene sua sponte absent extraordinary prejudice.

Impact

Charging Decisions: Prosecutors may now confidently charge child neglect for affirmative harmful conduct that does not yield provable injury, avoiding the higher evidentiary burden of “abuse.”
Defense Strategy: Defense counsel can no longer rely on an action/inaction argument to defeat neglect counts. They must instead challenge the State on lack of “proper care,” culpability, or possible injuries.
Legislative Clarity: The decision fills a statutory gap created by the 2015 split, providing interpretive guidance until the Legislature chooses (or declines) to amend.
Evidence Law: Reinforces that voice identification by law-enforcement personnel suffices for Rule 901, and that objections must be specific to preserve appellate review.
Appellate Practice: Highlights the Court’s increasing strictness about waiver and the limited scope of obvious-error oversight.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Willfully”: North Dakota uses a broad definition—acting intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; it is not limited to purposeful omissions.
Obvious Error (Rule 52(b)): Even without an objection, the Supreme Court may correct a clear and plain error that affects substantial rights and undermines the fairness or reputation of judicial proceedings.
Authentication (Rule 901): Before evidence like recordings comes in, someone must show it is what it purports to be. This can be as simple as a familiar witness identifying the voices and verifying the integrity of the recording.
Conditional Relevance (Rule 104(b)): The judge decides whether there is enough evidence for the jury to reasonably find a fact (e.g., authenticity). If so, the evidence goes to the jury, which gives it whatever weight it deserves.
Opposing-Party Admission (Rule 801(d)(2)): A defendant’s own statements, when offered by the prosecution, are not hearsay and come in as evidence of whatever was said.

Conclusion

State v. Hendricks cements an important doctrinal point: North Dakota’s child-neglect statute is not limited to passive failures but captures affirmative misconduct that denies a child proper care, provided no actual injury is shown. The Court’s reading realigns the statutory scheme with practical realities of child-endangerment prosecutions and clarifies the legislature’s 2015 bifurcation of abuse and neglect. Procedurally, the ruling underscores the necessity of precise trial objections and demonstrates the sufficiency of straightforward authentication under Rule 901. Going forward, litigants must recalibrate both charging and defense strategies in light of Hendricks’s expansive view of “neglect,” and trial courts are reminded to tread cautiously in the absence of party-invited evidentiary disputes.