the court did not find criminal conduct based on leaving the child alone to go downstairs to a first floor restaurant for juice for the child while the child was sleeping alone in the bedroom with a space heater on. Rather criminal culpability was established as the result of her failure to follow up on the babysitting arrangements. Further, in dicta, the Court believed that if the only thing the defendant did was to go for the juice, it would have been highly unlikely that the defendant would have found herself before the Court at all. Miller @ 992, Footnote 3. The Defendant here, like in Miller, left the children in the home while the victim was across the street. He did not knowingly violate a duty of care that would endanger them. As previously stated, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth places the children in the home and out of harm’s way. Further, the time frame between the father leaving the area and the police arriving (and the victim getting back into the home) was apparently minimal. If anything, the defendant may have exercised a lack of parental judgment on the date in question. However, it did not rise to the level of criminal culpability. Accordingly, a prima facie case has not been sustained by the Commonwealth to either Endangering the Welfare of Children charges. CONCLUSION
the court did not find criminal conduct based on leaving the child alone to go downstairs to a first floor restaurant for juice for the child while the child was sleeping alone in the bedroom with a space heater on. Rather criminal culpability was established as the result of her failure to follow up on the babysitting arrangements. Further, in dicta, the Court believed that if the only thing the defendant did was to go for the juice, it would have been highly unlikely that the defendant would have found herself before the Court at all. Miller @ 992, Footnote 3. The Defendant here, like in Miller, left the children in the home while the victim was across the street. He did not knowingly violate a duty of care that would endanger them. As previously stated, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth places the children in the home and out of harm’s way. Further, the time frame between the father leaving the area and the police arriving (and the victim getting back into the home) was apparently minimal. If anything, the defendant may have exercised a lack of parental judgment on the date in question. However, it did not rise to the level of criminal culpability. Accordingly, a prima facie case has not been sustained by the Commonwealth to either Endangering the Welfare of Children charges. CONCLUSION
OPINION.CARLOS%20AGUIRRE.docx