Commonwealth v. Howard
402 A.2d 674 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's omission or failure to act to protect their child from abuse by another person can be the basis for an involuntary manslaughter conviction if the parent has a legal duty to protect the child, the failure to act is a direct cause of the child's death, and the omission was reckless or grossly negligent.
Facts:
- The appellant (mother) resided with her five-year-old daughter and her boyfriend, Edward Watts.
- For several weeks leading up to the child's death, Watts regularly and sadistically beat the child.
- The appellant was aware of the ongoing abuse, witnessed it, and occasionally struck the child herself.
- The appellant took no action to protect her child, such as stopping Watts, evicting him, or reporting the abuse to authorities.
- On the evening of March 5, 1977, Watts beat the child, causing her to fall and hit her head on a piece of furniture.
- The following morning, the child could not be awakened and was pronounced dead on arrival at a hospital.
- A post-mortem examination revealed the cause of death was multiple injuries to the head and trunk, sustained over a period of time.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was tried for involuntary manslaughter in a lower court.
- The case was a 'waiver trial,' meaning the judge decided the case without a jury.
- The trial court found the appellant guilty, basing her culpability on her failure to protect her child.
- The appellant appealed the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent's failure to protect their child from a pattern of abuse inflicted by another person constitute involuntary manslaughter when that failure is a direct cause of the child's death and demonstrates recklessness or gross negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoffman, J.
Yes. A parent's failure to protect their child from known, ongoing abuse can be the basis for an involuntary manslaughter conviction. The court reasoned that an omission can create criminal culpability where a legal duty to act exists, and the parent-child relationship imposes such a duty. The court determined the appellant's failure to act was a 'direct cause' of the death, distinguishing this from cases with a superseding cause, like in Commonwealth v. Root. Instead, it likened the case to Commonwealth v. Skufca, where a mother's act of leaving her children locked in a room was the legal cause of their death in a fire because it left them in a defenseless position. Here, the appellant’s failure to remove the child from a savage environment was a continuing and direct cause of her death. Finally, the court found the appellant's conduct was reckless because she consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk to her child’s life by knowingly acquiescing to weeks of torture, which constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a reasonable parent would observe.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that a parent's legal duty to protect their child is an affirmative one, and a breach of this duty through inaction can lead to criminal homicide charges. It clarifies that 'direct causation' in criminal law is not limited to the immediate physical act causing death, but can include an omission that creates or perpetuates a state of mortal danger. This precedent significantly impacts child abuse cases by holding passive, non-abusive parents criminally liable for failing to prevent harm inflicted by others in the household. It puts parents on notice that they cannot claim innocence by merely standing by while their child is abused.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Howard