In ruling for Snow, Judge Brandon J. Harrison, writing for the three assenting judges, wrote:
"The state suggests that we use the 'improbable explanations for the bruising' as evidence of Snow's guilt, but the record shows that it was Kirby, not Snow, who offered the improbable explanations. The state also argues that the baby was in the care of only Snow and Kirby when the injuries occurred, that both parents denied any major accidents had occurred, and that Snow and Kirby had not hurt the baby. That only Snow and Kirby had access to the child does not indicate the guilt of one parent and not the other, nor does both parents' denial of any major accidents. It is true that Snow told investigators that Kirby had not hurt the baby, but he also said that he had not hurt the baby. And Kirby never indicated that Snow had hurt the baby. And though he did not immediately seek medical attention for the baby, this is not sufficient evidence that Snow, as opposed to Kirby, caused the harm. And finally, the video and accompanying commentary are certainly odd, but we cannot agree they are necessarily proof of guilt. The argument could just as easily be made that the fact he made the videos is proof of his innocence and show the concern and uncertainty of a young father.
"Based on the evidence presented, we hold that the state failed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis; on this evidence it is just as reasonable to conclude that Kirby was the perpetrator. As we said earlier, two equally reasonable conclusions as to what occurred may give rise to a suspicion of guilt, but that is not enough to support a conviction. Consequently, we must reverse and dismiss Snow's conviction for first-degree battery."
The Arkansas Court of Appeals said the jury did not have enough evidence to convict Jonathan Daniel Snow of a battery charge.
www.baxterbulletin.com