Court reverses ruling in death

Charges reinstated against cult leader, mother of sick girl who died in 2002

Knoxville News Sentinel/July 13, 2007
By Jamie Satterfield

Alleged cult leader Ariel Sherman did not have to marry his follower to be responsible for the care of her teenage daughter, an appellate court has ruled.

In a stunning ruling by the state Court of Criminal Appeals in a high-profile case pitting religion against the law, a Loudon County judge has been deemed wrong in his decision to toss out charges against Sherman and follower Jacqueline P. Crank in the death of her daughter, 15-year-old Jessica Crank.

"Because the trial court erred we reverse as to both defendants and remand the case to the trial court," appellate Judge James Curwood Witt Jr. wrote in the opinion made public Thursday.

Jessica died in 2002 from a rare form of bone cancer. Both she and her mother lived with Sherman and were followers in his Universal Life Church. Sherman has been dubbed in national publications as a cult leader. Jessica and her mother counted him as a "spiritual father."

Jessica's mother actually sought treatment for her daughter when the girl developed a basketball-sized tumor on her shoulder but did not follow up with recommendations to take the girl to a Knoxville hospital. Court testimony would later indicate that Sherman urged the mother to rely on prayer instead. Jessica died. Loudon County authorities charged Sherman and Crank with failing to get care for the girl.

Defense attorneys Donald A. Bosch, who represented Sherman, and Gregory P. Isaacs, who represented Crank, insisted the pair did nothing wrong. Isaacs insisted Crank exercised her religious freedom in relying on prayer to cure the girl. Bosch insisted Sherman had no legal duty to the girl because he was not married to Jessica's mother.

Both lawyers managed to convince Loudon Judge Eugene Eblen to pitch an indictment against the pair.

In its ruling, the appellate court disagreed, turning aside both Bosch's contention and an argument by Isaacs that a change in the law three years later should have applied retroactively to his client.

"Although the absence of a marital union is uncontroverted, the inference is inapt and unavailing," Witt wrote. "Ultimately, the question is: When does a potentially neglected child fall within a person's scope of duty? In the present case, we start with the insight that the absence of a marriage between defendants Sherman and Crank does not per se equate to an absence of duty of Sherman to the victim."

It's not clear, however, whether Sherman or Crank remain in Tennessee. Sherman has a history of moving from state to state with his flock. Bosch could not be reached for immediate comment. Isaacs was unsure of Crank's current whereabouts, but he was certain of the ultimate outcome of the case.

"We plan to ask for an immediate hearing and once again, on the basis of Ms. Crank's exercise of her religious freedom under the spiritual healing exception to child abuse and neglect that existed at the time, we expect these misdemeanor charges to be dismissed," Isaacs said.