$nbsp;

Behles sentenced to five years in prison for death of unborn child

 
LOADING
Apr 29, 2008 - 04:05:06 CDT
By JENNYMICHAEL
Bismarck Tribune
A Garrison woman has been sentenced to five years in prison for charges related to the death of her unborn child.

South Central District Judge Tom Schneider gave Michelle Behles 10 years in prison with five years suspended for endangerment of a child or vulnerable adult on Monday at the Burleigh County Detention Center.

He also sentenced her to concurrent sentences of five years in prison for possession of a controlled substance; one year in prison for ingesting a controlled substance; five years in prison for each of two counts of acquiring a controlled substance by deception; and a five-year suspended sentence for another count of acquiring a controlled substance by deception. She will be on supervised probation for five years following her release.

Schneider ordered Behles to undergo drug treatment and cognitive restructuring programs while in custody and to pay $1,175 in court fees.

"There's no question that you have a serious drug problem,"the judge told her.

Behles pleaded guilty on Feb. 22 to all the charges except on the endangering of a child or vulnerable adult. She entered a conditional guilty plea to that charge, a Class Afelony. A conditional guilty plea means Behles reserves her right to appeal a previously denied dismissal motion to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

The Garrison Ambulance Service was called to a Garrison home on Sept. 24 for a report of an unresponsive female. Ambulance personnel found pill bottles near Behles, who was semi-conscious. The bottles were for hydrocodone, locet and cyclobenazeprine.

Behles has admitted possessing and ingesting those drugs, as well as tizanidine, without valid prescriptions. The names on the bottles were not names Behles is known to use. Separately, she has admitted using the names "Ashley Benderson," "Melissa Anderson" and "Allison Hendrickson" to acquire prescription medications.

An ultrasound performed at Medcenter One in September showed the baby Behles was carrying had no heartbeat. Documents said a doctor at Medcenter One found that Behles had toxic levels of several drugs in her system, and the baby, which was more than 29 weeks along, did not survive the overdose. Doctors believed the baby could have lived outside the womb.

Behles' appointed defense attorney, Tom Glass, moved in December for the dismissal of the endangerment of a child charge, on the basis that he does not believe North Dakota law considers an unborn child a child. McLean County State's Attorney Ladd Erickson argued a child is defined by North Dakota law as "an individual who is under 18 years of age." He wrote that unborn children are not excluded from that definition.

Schneider sided with the prosecution, ruling that North Dakota courts have recognized viable, unborn children to be human beings in wrongful death cases. He wrote in his order denying dismissal that it would be inconsistent for a viable fetus "subsequent to its conception but prior to its birth" to be considered a child in civil cases but not in criminal cases.

Behles has a criminal history related to illegal possession and acquisition of prescription drugs and served time in a Minnesota women's prison for attempting to obtain a prescription in Polk County, Minn. She also has convictions for possession of Valium, obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, and multiple convictions for issuing checks without sufficient funds.

According to Sam Lincoln of the Mercer-McLean County Drug Task Force, Behles has gone by 13 last names, including Geiser, Kaltenberg and Weeks.

Erickson, who appeared via teleconference from Washburn, recommended a sentence that would have put Behles in prison for 10 years. He requested a sentence of 15 years with five years suspended for endangerment of a child with all other sentences, also adding up to 10 years, running at the same time. That would have kept her in prison for 10 years even if the Supreme Court overturns the endangerment of a child conviction, he said.

"Whether count three is upheld or not, it still resulted in the death of an unborn child," Erickson said.

Glass recommended the sentence imposed by Schneider, which he said also was recommended by a probation officer who conducted a presentence investigation.

Behles needs drug treatment and cognitive restructuring to ensure that nothing similar happens again, Glass said.

"Obviously, it was a very tragic sequence of events that had taken place,"he said. "She's discussed with me the selfishness of the act."

Behles, crying as she addressed the judge, said she needs treatment and wanted to be a "normal mom" to her 10-year-old daughter, who lives with the child's father in Garrison.

"I'm in so much pain as a result of my actions," she said.

(Reach reporter Jenny Michael at 250-8225 or jenny.michael@;bismarcktribune.com.)
News > Local
   Printer friendly version
Behles sentenced to five years in prison for death of unborn child
Comments

Online Editor wrote on May 5, 2008 8:59 AM:

" To Mike R.: To level the playing field I deleted Velvet Jones comment. Let's move the conversation back to the story. "

Mike R wrote on May 5, 2008 8:00 AM:

" Online editor: I disagree. The comments were NOT heading off in another direction before. They were pretty much on track until the comment about the war in Iraq. My comment was written for you to read at the same time as the one about the war in Iraq. You chose not to post mine, but you chose to post the one from Velvet Jones. By doing so, you are the one who changed the course of the conversation. If you were trying to keep it on track, you would have not posted either of them. You made a conscious decision to let the conversation take that turn and only that turn. "

Mom wrote on May 4, 2008 4:41 PM:

" Velvet; the article is about a baby's death, not about Chicago's homicides. It's local so of course we would talk more about it. What do you really expect any of us here to be able to do about the war or Chicago's homicides? There have been plenty of discussions on other articles relating to war and politics, you can't expect every blog to turn to the war. Why would it? In this particular blog I'm not sure who the 'fundies' are....do you? I don't think one has to be religious to see the trajedy in a baby dying. "

Velvet Jones wrote on May 4, 2008 3:49 PM:

" Yes, when I say "fundies" I do mean the religious fundentalist who seem to infest this website. Raging with blood lust for war and vengeance oversees, at the same time crying over the loss of an unknown, but local, single child is the ultimate hypocrisy. Too many Americans see people lives who are different then theirs, or simply in a far away place, as having little or no value. I just wonder how many of you have traveled outside the state, let alone on side the country. Heck, even inside our own borders there are places that are war zones, yet the majority of Americans could care less. Look at Chicago last week, 30+ homicides in one night. Yet barely a blurb on the evening news, and certainly now expressions of outrage on this website.
If my comments were off topic I apologies, but this kind of narrowed minded thinking is really getting under my skin. "

Online Editor wrote on May 4, 2008 12:50 PM:

" To Mike R. and other readers, writers: I don't disagree that the topic was heading in another direction before, but let's steer it back now. I do not, however, appreciate anyone here suggesting that they know my personal or political views. I do not post my views or edit comments based on them. If that were the case I would lose my job. As a side note, if you address me personally I will not see the comment. Comment reading will be handled by our copy editors beginning at 1 p.m. I will be reading comments again tomorrow. "

Mike R wrote on May 4, 2008 12:14 PM:

" Online editor: You are right. The topic was not abortion, but it sure as heck wasn't the war in Iraq either, but you let someone try to take it that direction. At least my direction still involved babies and not grown men fighting in a war. You didn't want the topic to get off track, so you allow someone to take it even farther off track than what I ever could have. I am sure that my direction was a LOT closer to on topic than the war in Iraq. Hey, you are the editor and you are going to allow what you want. I realize and accept that. Just don't try to blow smoke and tell me that it has anything to do with the direction of the topic and not your personl agenda. If I were to believe that, I would fall for about anything. I gotta go now. Got a hot tip on some prime beach front property right here in good ole ND. "

LJK wrote on May 4, 2008 10:44 AM:

" We have our second child on the way (due in October). If the OB suggested drug testing become part of the routine care, we would be highly offended. In part that's because she is a friend and fellow physician, and we both understand the issue of patient rights and privacies; there is not much that can be done without a patient's consent. But there's more to it than that- insurance companies for certain would screech like mad cats about having to cover an additional expense, one that is not warranted except in a few cases, and that would never fly. And truthfully, many drug abusing women are not overly concerned about regular pre-natal care and would not be in the office in the first place, and would not be available for testing anyway. Drug abuse is a bad deal all the way around, but mandatory testing is neither practical or realistic. "

Online Editor Jason Lueder wrote on May 4, 2008 8:41 AM:

" To Mike R: I read your comment from home yesterday. The story is not about abortion. I was not willing to change this forum from comments about the story to a debate about abortion. As a long time reader and writer here I'm sure you've seen the topic of discussion take an immediate right turn, head in another direction and never come back to the original story. One thing we can all be sure about - there will be many abortion stories in the future that will allow you to share your position on the topic. In this case, it was the other guy's fault and the other guy is me. "

Mary K wrote on May 4, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Velvet Jones, Better them than us. "

Mike R wrote on May 4, 2008 6:27 AM:

" Online editor: Actually, it clarifies nothing. My post was made at about the same time that Velvet Jones' post was made, so I am quite sure that the same person read both of them. It was not offensive, contained no foul language, and was a heck of a lot more on topic than the killing in Iraq was. Of course, you could have looked that up for yourself, but it is sooooo much easier to defend your staff and make it all the other guy's fault. Yeah, maybe you did just clear it up for me. "

Mom wrote on May 3, 2008 10:33 PM:

" to Velvet Jones; I fail to make the connection between a woman who takes drugs and ultimately kills her baby to what happens during a war. Apples to oranges, I would say. Why did you use the word 'fundies', doesn't that mean a religious fundamentalist? I don't see any post on here that would indicate anything religious, do you? "

Mom wrote on May 3, 2008 10:28 PM:

" to LJK; I don't think a blood test for drugs while pregnant is invasive or treating the woman as a criminal. I wouldn't advocate the information be turned over to law enforcement, but rather used to treat the woman's health and that of her baby. They test pregnant women's urine and blood for other things to make sure she stays healthy (such as blood sugars, iron, etc.) , testing for drugs that could harm the baby could be done for the same purposes. If she is a drug user the doctor could steer her to a treatment facility or at least stress the dangers. On the other hand if you did mandate drug testing on pregnant women it may just make some women stay away from prenatal care. It's a tough call. If something like that would be mandated I would hope it would be for the purposes of trying to help the baby/mother stay healthy and not for prosecuting purposes. "

News editor wrote on May 3, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Mike R,

Although we have policies for website comments, they are not vetted by a single person (if they were, that person would have to be working on them 24/7!). A number of different people moderate the comments, including the online editor, the managing editor, myself, and half a dozen copy editors. It would be nice to be 100% consistent in how we interpret the rules, but it's just not possible. Sometimes offensive comments slip through the cracks, and sometimes harmless ones are misread as offensive. There is no agenda here, only a team of people working to keep the discussion as clean and civil as possible while letting you have your say.

If you want your comment to go through, the best thing to do is keep it polite, clean, and on topic. You can always try a different way of saying something if your first comment is rejected. I hope this helps clarify how we do things. "

Mike R wrote on May 3, 2008 12:58 PM:

" Online editor: Velvet Jones can make a comparison between the killing of babies and the killing going on over in Iraq, but I can't challenge the difference between this case and legalized abortion? You have got to be kidding me right? Or did I touch a nerve with the abortion analogy? Maybe you are one of those hardcore pro-choicers who chooses to ignore any logic which points out your double standard? "

LJK wrote on May 3, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Just me- Laws can't even get passed to obtain DNA via a cotton swab on the inside of a murder suspect's cheek, and that's a non-invasive procedure. Women who have no history of drug abuse and do not give any indications of such should never be subjected to being treated like criminals. More people are killed from car accidents involving drugs and alcohol than pregnancies lost to that cause- based on that, it makes as much sense for everyone who has a driver's license to be subject to routine drug testing. How do think most people would respond to that? "

Mary K wrote on May 3, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Have you ever noticed that the sentences are usually harsher for stealing money than murdrer? "

mimi wrote on May 1, 2008 3:01 PM:

" to snap:

What I would say is: The woman should have given her baby a chance at life! There are many women out there that would have taken that baby and cared for it if given the chance! She more than likely did not want it because it certainly would have interferred with her lifestyle! I would be willing to bet, the drugs were one way of getting rid of it.... sorry, that is how I feel about women that take any kind of drugs or alcohol (except maybe for a glass of wine...... OCCASIONALLY) while pregnant. "

mandan wrote on May 1, 2008 1:48 PM:

" to Comparison
what she did by using ILLEGALLY OBTAINED prescriptions which she has done for years and a doctor who performs a LEGAL ABORTION. Most abortions are done well before 20 weeks where as she was 29 weeks which means the fetus could have survived outside the womb. Big difference!!!!!!!! "

REX wrote on May 1, 2008 5:47 AM:

" Snap, Are you a garment fastener? "

To Snap wrote on Apr 29, 2008 10:49 PM:

" Nothing says she had to keep that child. Her obligation would be to give it life and then let it go to someone who would give it a chance for a deent life. The only drawback would be that the child would most likely be born addicted with a life long monkey on it's back, so it would have taken a very loving and caring home, but there are plenty of them. Regardless, being so careless with a life dependent on you to survive is selfish and irresponsible. "

My thoughts wrote on Apr 29, 2008 6:38 PM:

" I believe she is guilty of the taking of a life. It is thought that baby could have lived outside the womb, so I would call that a life. Children born at 28 weeks or sometimes earlier in this day and age can and do live. This child had a chance for a full life and it was taken away. How sad. If women can have sex knowing they may be creating a life, then they need to be responsible to that life, it's only 9 months of decent living, and after that, they can resume their life style without hurting anyone, if that's what they need to do. For those who don't think this was taking a life because the child was not born, what if that child had been born at 1pm and someone OD's the baby at 1:01pm, what would that be? Is location such a big deal rather an viability? My thought is she took a life. "

SNAP wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:55 PM:

" Okay Righteous Ones, let's say she didn't overdose and carried to term. How do you feel about a child being raised by an unmarried, promiscuous, lying, thieving, drug addict?
"

Economic Conservative wrote on Apr 29, 2008 1:19 PM:

" Here we go, let's turn this into a debate about when a life begins when the real issue is how little value the citizens of North Dakota place on the life of a child. 5 years here, 7 years in Devils Lake about 10 days ago, 8 years in Grafton several weeks ago. When are we, as citizens, going to scream about the actions of our States Attorneys and judges who send out the message that children and their lives and treatment little or no value in North Dakota? Congratulations Mr. Erickson and Judge Schneider, , this sentence has put a new low on the value of a child's life in our state. "

Comparison wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:24 PM:

" This is a really sad case. But it also illuminates a huge discrepancy in our values and our system. What appears to be an overdose kills an unborn child and our legal system swings into action. When other drugs are used to purposely kill an unborn child we call that abortion and the legal system looks the other way. I am not able to explain the difference between these two situations other than deep down I think most everyone realizes what abortion really is no matter what label or reasoning is applied. "

sarahr wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:22 PM:

" To Mother---i was being sarcastic. I am just getting sick of these cases ---where people seriously hurt these children or worse kill them and they get off easy. It just makes me sick to my stomach. RN for Life....my friend who got hooked on lorcet---was taking that drug when she got pregnant with her 3rd child...thank God her daughter turned out all right. "

jetcity wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:49 AM:

" To Just Me........When you find that 1 woman out of how many, thousands? I should clarify we are talking about illegal drugs correct? or are you including legal drugs? You can send that one to get an abortion. (I am being sarcastic) "

RNforlife wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:49 AM:

" Drug testing is done routinely on women, especially if there is prior history or a sketchy history from the woman. A doctor can order a drug test at anytime during the care of the woman. If there is late or no prenatal care it is policy in most hospitals to test. "

Mother wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:46 AM:

" To Sarahr: Why shouldn't everyone stick up for the children in cases like this? Obviously the women carrying these babies don't stick up for them, so someone has to, although now it is too late. "

IMO wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:41 AM:

" How sad,5 years for a precious life. way to go ND system, way to put no value on the childrens lives in this state. "

just me wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:10 AM:

" the state should past a law where any pregnant women should have to submit drug testing through out the whole pregnancy not just when they suspect something..thats just my opinion "

momoftwo wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:07 AM:

" WOW! All I can say is if there's a heartbeat, it's a life. Glad to hear that this woman is getting the help she truly needs.... "

sarahr wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:44 AM:

" I love it how people stick up for the children in these cases...what a joke. "

WOW wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:04 AM:

" only 5 years for a death of a child. "

what a joke wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:52 AM:

" 5 years thats it? "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.
Local Headlines:

Bismarck News

North Dakota News

Recent Headlines:
LOADING

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY