Com. v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 28 September 1990
• Citation: 580 A.2d 868,398 Pa.Super. 116
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Laurel June CAMPBELL, Appellee. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Wayne Arnold CAMPBELL, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 868

580 A.2d 868

398 Pa.Super. 116

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Laurel June CAMPBELL, Appellee.

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Wayne Arnold CAMPBELL, Appellee.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Dec. 7, 1989.

Filed Sept. 28, 1990.

Ross McKeirnan, Warren, for appellees.

Before DEL SOLE, KELLY and HESTER, JJ.

DEL SOLE, Judge:

These are appeals by the Commonwealth from an order granting, Appellees, Wayne and Laurel Campbell, a motion in arrest of judgment ¹ following their jury conviction of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304. The question presented is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict against parents whose thirteen year old daughter became pregnant. Having reviewed the record, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Appellees' thirteen year old daughter, Stephanie, met an eighteen year old young man named Chad sometime in July of 1988. He was permitted to visit Stephanie at Appellees' home while they were present. During July, Stephanie and Chad engaged in sexual intercourse on various occasions in the Appellees' home. At one point, Stephanie became concerned about pregnancy and had a pregnancy test taken. The physician, Dr. McGeary, performed the test which was negative. In conveying the test results, Dr. McGeary spoke with Laurel Campbell, Stephanie's mother. He advised that he would not recommend administering birth control pills to a thirteen year old but that pregnancy would be very unhealthy for a child of that age since the complications of obstetrical procedures under age fifteen are on average, much increased. Later, on August 1st, Dr. McGeary administered another pregnancy test to Stephanie which was repeated the following day. Both of these tests were positive. At the time of trial Stephanie was pregnant. Chad was charged with three counts of statutory rape, but under a plea agreement with the Commonwealth, if he testified in this case he would be placed in an ARD program, and if successfully completed, statutory rape charges would be dropped. There was no evidence in this case that the Appellees permitted, condoned, fostered or prompted Stephanie's sexual activity which led to her pregnancy. Following a jury verdict of guilty, the trial court granted the defendant's motion.

The Commonwealth claims that it presented sufficient evidence for a jury to convict the appellees of endangering the welfare of a child.

In reviewing an appeal from a trial court's granting of motion in arrest of judgment, we must determine whether the evidence offered by the Commonwealth was legally sufficient to support the verdict. To reach this determination, we accept all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which the fact-finder could have based the verdict; we can affirm the granting of a motion in arrest of judgment if, viewed in that manner, the evidence was nonetheless insufficient in law to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the crimes charged. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 351 Pa.Super. 309, 505 A.2d 997, 998 (1986). [Citations omitted.]

Endangering the Welfare of Children, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304, provides:

A parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.

In Commonwealth v. Mack, 467 Pa. 613, 359 A.2d 770 (1976), our Supreme Court held that this statute will be given meaning by reference to the common sense of the community and the broad protective purposes for which it was enacted. The facts in Mack had not been established and, therefore, were not set forth on the record. The Supreme Court determined that it could only decide whether the statute contained an ascertainable standard and whether standard infringes upon first amendment rights. The Court held that § 4304 was not facially vague but "the 'vagueness' issue may be finally determined only with reference to the conduct of the person challenging the statute." Mack, supra 359 A.2d at 772. In Mack, the Court also stated:

The common sense of the community, as well as the sense of decency, propriety and the morality which most people entertain is sufficient to apply the statute to each particular case, and to individuate what particular conduct is rendered criminal by it. [Citing Commonwealth v. Marlin, 452 Pa. 380, 386-87, 305 A.2d 14, 18 (1973).]

The Official Comment to Section 4304 provides further guidance with respect to the statute, it states "The offense involves the endangering of the physical or moral welfare of a child by an act or omission in violation of legal duty even though such legal duty does not itself carry a criminal sanction." (Purdon's 1986)

In the case sub judice, the Commonwealth cites the following inapposite cases for the very unique fact scenario we have before us. In Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 471 A.2d 1228 (1984), the defendant, the father of one of the two teenage girls he abused, was convicted under § 4304 for choking them, grabbing at their genitals, exposing his genitals and telling his daughter that he could prevent her pregnancy by using the condoms he removed from his pocket. In Commonwealth v. Ogin, 373 Pa.Super. 116, 540 A.2d 549 (1988), the parents of a seventeen month old girl were found guilty of simple assault and endangering the welfare of a child for using excessive force against their little girl by dragging the child, flinging her against a building and pushing her face in hot food among other things. In Ogin, we held that parents have the responsibility to advance physical, mental, and emotional health of their children, and extreme acts or grave omissions which adversely affect the child may come within the scope of § 4304. In Commonwealth v. Barnhart, 345 Pa.Super. 10, 497 A.2d 616 (1985), where the parents of a two year old boy were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child for failing to provide their son with medical attention resulting in the child's death from cancer. Appellant's were members of the Faith Tabernacle Church and were relying on God for a cure to the exclusion of modern medicine.

The Commonwealth also cites Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 357 Pa.Super. 38, 515 A.2d 311 (1986), where this court held that evidence is sufficient to prove the intent element of the offense of Endangering the Welfare of a Child when the accused is aware of his or her duty to protect the child, is aware that circumstances exist that threaten the child's physical or psychological welfare and has either failed to act or has taken actions so lame or meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to be effective to protect the child's physical or psychological welfare.

In Cardwell, we determined that the crime of endangering the welfare of a child is a specific intent crime and the intent required is the knowing violation of a duty of care. We then looked to the definition of culpability under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b) which provides, in part:

(2) A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and

(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

In Cardwell, the mother was charged with endangering the welfare of her daughter for failing to take sufficient steps to protect the child from the child's stepfather. For a period of four years, beginning when the child was eleven years of age, the stepfather sexually abused her, twice resulting in the child becoming pregnant. The Commonwealth provided evidence that the mother had direct knowledge of her husband's sexual intercourse with her daughter but failed to remove the child from the situation or to protect her.

With the exception of Cardwell, the above cases are easily distinguished from the present case since they all involve physical abuse by the parents or guardian. In this case, the person who took sexual advantage of Stephanie was not a parent or guardian. Cardwell is somewhat similar to this case in that the mother was prosecuted for failing to intervene to prevent abuse. However, in Cardwell, the mother did in fact know that her husband had impregnated her child twice and had continued with a pattern of abuse but she did not remove her from the home. In the instant case, the relationship between Stephanie and Chad with the ensuing pregnancy all occurred within a span of less than a month.

Admittedly, Appellees have an obligation to protect their...