Jury weighs fate of parents in faith-healing case

OREGON CITY, Ore. (RNS) The first pictures a jury saw of Neil Beagley were not pretty. The autopsy photos reduced the 16-year-old to cold scientific evidence that illuminated his death but gave no inkling of his spirit. The jurors’ last view on Friday (Jan. 29), however, was a slide show depicting a happy, adventurous boy […]

OREGON CITY, Ore. (RNS) The first pictures a jury saw of Neil Beagley were not pretty. The autopsy photos reduced the 16-year-old to cold scientific evidence that illuminated his death but gave no inkling of his spirit.

The jurors’ last view on Friday (Jan. 29), however, was a slide show depicting a happy, adventurous boy growing up in a loving home, a boy his mother called “the shining star of the family.”

Late Friday, jurors began considering what to make of those contrasting images as they weigh the fate of the boy’s parents, Jeffrey and Marci Beagley. The parents, who chose faith-healing over conventional medicine, are charged with criminally negligent homicide for failing to provide medical care.


His death in June 2008 — of complications from an undiagnosed congenital urinary blockage — came as a shock, said the Beagleys, who belong to the Followers of Christ church, which embraces faith healing against medical care.

When their son became ill in March 2008 and again that June, they prayed over him and made sure he was warm, comfortable and well-fed. They testified they offered to take him to a doctor, but he refused, saying he wanted to put his faith in God.

In closing arguments, attorney Wayne Mackeson, who represents Jeffrey Beagley, walked the jury through testimony from doctors who said Neil suffered from an array of nonspecific symptoms that did not indicate death was a possibility. They were warning signs any well-meaning parent could miss, he said.

Prosecutors said the teen’s fate was sealed when he was born. His undetected medical condition caused urine to back up into his body and eventually destroyed his kidneys. He also was born into a family that believed using medical doctors showed a lack of faith in God.

Doctors who testified for both sides said they’d never encountered a case like Neil Beagley’s — one urologist called it “one in a million.” The condition usually is detected before birth and treated in infancy.

“If their position is it could happen to anybody … there would be other victims, wouldn’t there?” said prosecutor Greg Horner.


Mackeson, meanwhile, said prosecutors were trying to paint the Beagleys as “ignorant hillbillies.”

The key question facing jurors is this: What would a reasonable person have done? Jurors must determine whether Neil’s death resulted from the Beagleys’ failure to be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risks, and whether that failure is “a gross deviation” from what reasonable standards of care.

The state does not have to prove that the Beagleys intended to cause Neil’s death or that they knew he was going to die.

There are also factors beyond the law that could shape the jury’s thinking: By all accounts, the Beagleys are hardworking, responsible people who love their children. Are these parents guilty of bad judgment, or are they criminals? Even if they’re guilty, do they belong in jail?

Were the Beagleys’ actions “so beyond the pale … that these people should be labeled as criminals in this community?” Mackeson asked.

In a faith-healing trial last summer, the Beagleys’ daughter, Raylene Worthington, and her husband, Carl, were charged with second-degree manslaughter in the faith-healing death of their 15-month-old daughter, Ava. Raylene Worthington was acquitted on all charges; Carl Worthington was convicted on a lesser charge.

Although the state did not have to prove the Worthingtons acted intentionally, jurors said afterward that they couldn’t find them guilty of manslaughter when they didn’t mean to cause their daughter’s death.


If convicted, the Beagleys face a likely sentence of 16 to 18 months, although they could get probation.

Jurors may ask themselves if the Beagleys have suffered enough. Their son is dead, and they endured the emotional turmoil of a highly publicized trial. It is only natural for jurors to feel some empathy, although it has no role in their decision, something Horner acknowledged Friday in his closing argument.

“There isn’t anybody here,” he said, “who hasn’t had their heart touched.”

(Steve Mayes writes for The Oregonian in Portland, Ore.)

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!