Nurses allowed to testify in death of diabetic child

By Matt Pordum (contact)

Thursday, Aug. 26, 2004 | 9:33 a.m.

A ruling Wednesday is expected to bolster the murder case against the Las Vegas woman charged with killing her diabetic daughter by failing to make sure the 11-year-old's insulin levels were maintained.

District Judge Sally Loehrer ruled that jurors will be allowed to hear from two nurses who were very critical of the amount of care Cheryl Botzet was giving her daughter, Ariel, two years before the girl died.

After listening to arguments from Botzet's lawyer and prosecutors, Loehrer granted part of the prosecution's motion to admit into testimony statements from Molly Bangert, a nurse who treated Ariel Botzet while she was living in Colorado with her mother, and those of a school nurse at the Colorado school that Ariel Botzet attended.

Loehrer said she would allow Bangert to testify at trial as to her November 2002 e-mail in which she stated Ariel Botzet's blood sugar had not been checked in five months.

Botzet's attorney, Herb Sachs, argued that the statement wasn't relevant because Ariel Botzet was living with her father in Las Vegas during the five-month period referred to by Bangert.

Loehrer said Sachs would be able to fully challenge Bangert's testimony when she takes the witness stand at a hearing a few days before the trial starts.

Cheryl Botzet is scheduled to go to trial Oct. 11 on a charge of first-degree murder, but the trial date is expected to be changed at a hearing scheduled for next month.

Loehrer also ruled that jurors would be able to hear Bangert testify about a confrontation she had with Cheryl Botzet about Ariel's medical test results in August 2002. Bangert claims that after telling Cheryl Botzet about the importance of administering the test Cheryl Botzet said "she did not need to be told how to manage her daughter's diabetes."

Sach's argued Bangert's claim amounted to only "half of the statement." Sachs said if the full statement was read it would include Cheryl Botzet saying "you don't have to tell me, we did this (administered the test)."

Loehrer admitted the testimony while again reassuring Sachs that he would be able to explore the issue further at the pre-trial hearing.

Finally, Loehrer admitted the statements of a school nurse who "voiced concern" over how Ariel Botzet was being treated while she was living in Colorado.

The jury that ultimately decides Cheryl Botzet's fate, however, will not hear everything the prosecution had argued for in its motion.

Loehrer said the jury would not be allowed to hear anything concerning a Colorado apartment manager's opinion on the living conditions that Cheryl Botzet provided her daughter and teenage son while living in Colorado.

Additionally Loehrer found the opinion of Marsha Tuggle, a Colorado social services worker, failed to meet the burden of admissibility. Tuggle said she found Cheryl Botzet to be "self-absorbed and self-centered" and that she failed to file the paperwork required for free services to treat her daughter's condition.

To close the hearing, Loehrer was adamant in saying the life of Cheryl Botzet's 17-year-old son, Skylar, was not relevant to the prosecution's case against Cheryl Botzet. The prosecution wanted Loehrer to allow testimony concerning Skylar Botzet dropping out of high school.

Sachs didn't feel the prosecution scored a huge victory in the matter, saying because of the hearings they would now have to "pay more money to have their witnesses come out earlier for the trial."

Sachs contends the prosecution did not show sufficient proof at his client's preliminary hearing to suggest she was guilty of murder. He will have his opportunity to argue for dismissal of the case on that contention at a hearing scheduled for Sept. 8 before Loehrer.