news-record.com

A judge who overrules a jury, especially in a high-profile murder case, has to be very sure he's right.

It took nearly two years, but Superior Court Judge John O. Craig III of High Point won a big vote of support last week. The N.C. Court of Appeals backed his decision in November 2007 to set aside verdicts against Mary Elizabeth Roach immediately after a jury found her guilty of felony child abuse and first-degree murder.

Roach was a baby-sitter for 2-year-old Hailey Rae Resch, who on Nov. 9, 2005, stopped breathing while in Roach's care. Paramedics could not revive her. The state medical examiner found the child had a variety of injuries: five subgaleal hematomas; bilateral subdural neomembranes; contusions on her head, torso and extremities; and bilateral retinal hemorrhages.

Roach was charged with causing Hailey's death, and the trial generated a great deal of public interest in High Point. So, it was stunning when, after the jury returned its verdicts, Craig granted a defense motion to set them aside for lack of evidence.

It's not so uncommon for a judge to dismiss charges before a case goes to a jury, but Craig's action was both rare and gutsy. A judge who reverses a jury's decision might appear to laymen to put himself above the law. In fact, he's obliged to intervene if he strongly believes the jury was wrong and justice requires a different verdict.

The state appealed Craig's ruling, seeking to reinstate the convictions, but a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals agreed with Craig. Evidence presented in court was insufficient to establish that the defendant inflicted Hailey's injuries, the court said. The child died while she was in Roach's care, but, based on the evidence, "the jury could not determine whether the injury was inflicted while Hailey was under (the) defendant's exclusive care, or at some other earlier time."

The opinion does not conclude Roach was innocent or point blame at anyone else. It says Craig was right to rule that evidence of guilt was lacking. And no one should be convicted unless the case against her is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.