State v. Rundle

500 N.W.2d 916 (Wisc. 1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Rundle (D) was convicted of being a party to intentional and reckless physical abuse of his 3.5- year-old daughter. On August 6, 1989, the daughter, K, was admitted to the hospital comatose and covered in bruises and scratches of various ages. K was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. She is blind, probably suffers from brain damage and physical injuries as a result of the abuse. D was charged with four counts of child abuse. Pamela, the mother of the child and D’s wife, was also charged and convicted. Her convictions were upheld by the appeals court. D was acquitted of two of the charges and was convicted of one count of intentionally causing a child bodily harm and one count of recklessly causing a child great bodily harm as a party to the crimes. The first incident of abuse occurred when Pamela picked up the child and threw her several feet into the hallway of their home. D was hearing impaired and not present, but he came rushing in after feeling vibrations from the fall. The second incident occurred in public when K had been misbehaving in the car. Pamela stopped the car, slapped her face, kicked her in the knee, and dragged her by the arm so hard that K might have been hurt. D and Pamela were tried together. The State contended that D aided and abetted the abusive behavior and said that D was guilty because he did nothing to protect his child against Pamela’s abuse. The evidence at trial adduced the constant and horrific abuse K endured at the hands of Pamela. Family and friends had seen Pamela shake, slap and throw the child for practically no reason at all. The same witnesses testified that D did not act to prevent the abuse, others had even talked to D, and he admitted he should do something about it. The most D ever did was to just ask Pamela to stop, or he stood by and remained silent. The court of appeals held the evidence was insufficient to convict of aiding and abetting but that it was sufficient to find guilt under a different statute that was not charged. The state appealed.