KEY POINTS:
A jury must be convinced that a young mother did not kill her baby to find her guilty of covering up the baby's murder, a court has heard.
Jaymie Ellen Natasha Haddock, 20, is accused of being an accessory after the fact to the murder of her 3 1/2-month-old daughter Sarah in March 2005.
The Crown alleges that Sarah was killed by her father, Haddock's partner Joshua Woodcock, although he has never been charged.
Haddock's trial began yesterday at the High Court at Rotorua, and her lawyer told the jury that they had to be satisfied Mr Woodcock murdered Sarah, or they could not find his client guilty.
The lawyer, Thomas Sutcliffe, said Haddock could not be an accessory if she was in fact responsible for the killing.
Haddock, who has two other children, is also charged with wilful neglect for allegedly failing to get medical attention for the baby in the days leading to her death. Sarah died from bleeding to the brain caused by a skull fracture. A pathologist found the injury was non-accidental and significant force - enough to buckle and fracture her skull - was applied to her head in the 12 hours before her death.
She also had other injuries that the pathologist said were inflicted seven to 14 days prior to her death. They included fractured ribs and internal bleeding and bruising.
Crown solicitor Fletcher Pilditch said the baby would have had difficulty moving and breathing, and Haddock must have noticed her injuries.
The Crown alleges that on the night Sarah died, Haddock covered up evidence to prevent Mr Woodcock being arrested.
Mr Pilditch said after witnessing him fatally assaulting the baby, she bathed and dressed the infant, placing her in her bassinet to portray the death as accidental. Haddock denied knowing how Sarah received her injuries, but later she allegedly told an aunt she had seen Mr Woodcock hitting her.
However, Mr Sutcliffe said the conversation with the aunt never happened and Haddock did not witness any ill-treatment of her child by Mr Woodcock. Justice Paul Heath told the jury there were "good legal reasons" why Mr Woodcock had not been prosecuted.
The trial continues today.
