State v. Wilder
748 A.2d 444, 2000 Me. LEXIS 33, 2000 ME 32 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To overcome the parental control justification defense in an assault prosecution, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the physical force used caused injury greater than transient pain and minor, temporary marks or bruises; and (2) the parent's belief that such force was necessary to control the child's misconduct was a gross deviation from what a reasonable and prudent parent would believe necessary in the same situation.
Facts:
- Lawrence Wilder's nine-year-old son was staying with him for a week during the April 1998 school vacation.
- On one occasion, while the two were playing a board game, Wilder's son was 'talking too much.'
- In response, Wilder grabbed his son's shoulder, squeezed it long enough to cause pain, and told him to 'shut up.'
- A couple of days later, under similar circumstances, Wilder again grabbed his son on the same shoulder, causing slightly more pain because it was in the same spot.
- Towards the end of the week, while in a car, the son was 'exaggerating' a story about a movie.
- Wilder responded by grabbing his son's mouth, squeezing it hard enough to cause pain and leave bruises, and again telling him to 'shut up.'
- The physical contact from Wilder resulted in temporary pain and minor, temporary bruises on his son's shoulder and face.
Procedural Posture:
- After the son returned home, his mother, Bernice Landry, observed bruises and reported the incidents to state authorities and the police.
- The State prosecuted Lawrence Wilder in the Maine District Court (court of first instance) on three counts of assault.
- The District Court found Wilder guilty on all three counts, ruling the parental control justification did not apply because the son's behavior did not constitute 'misconduct.'
- Wilder appealed to the Superior Court (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- Wilder then appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (the state's highest 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:
Is the evidence sufficient to support an assault conviction against a parent who uses physical force causing only transient pain and temporary bruises for discipline, when the parental control justification defense is raised?
Opinions:
Majority - Alexander, J.
No. The evidence is insufficient to support an assault conviction because the State failed to disprove the parental control justification beyond a reasonable doubt. The court determined that the trial court erred by refusing to consider the justification defense, as a child's 'talking too much' or 'exaggerating' is a sufficient basis for a parent to exercise control and discipline. Once the defense is raised, the State bears the heavy burden of proving the parent's actions fall outside its protection. To do so, the State must show both that the physical harm exceeded transient pain and temporary marks and that the parent's belief in the necessity of the force was a 'gross deviation' from the standard of a reasonable and prudent parent. In this case, Wilder's actions of grabbing his son, which caused only temporary pain and minor bruises, did not, as a matter of law, meet this high threshold for criminal liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the parental control justification defense in Maine, establishing a high evidentiary bar for prosecuting parents for assault related to physical discipline. By creating a two-part test focusing on the level of harm and the reasonableness of the parent's belief, the court draws a distinct line between permissible parental force and criminal conduct. The ruling provides substantial legal protection for parents who use physical discipline that results in only minor, temporary injuries like bruises, thereby limiting the state's ability to intervene in what the court views as family matters short of clear abuse. This precedent will likely make prosecutors more hesitant to bring assault charges in cases involving low-level physical discipline.
