State v. Williquette

385 N.W.2d 145 (1986)

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

Terri Williquette (D) was charged with two counts of child abuse in that she let her husband abuse her seven-year-old son and her eight-year-old daughter. A complaint of child abuse was based on information supplied by Sergeant Bies of the Door County sheriff's department. The sergeant obtained his information from conversations with the children, B.W. and C.P., Dr. Ferrin Holmes, Bert Williquette and Terri Williquette (D) as well as from his review of a conversation B.W. had had with a social worker. B.W. stated that on November 10, 1983, he had been beaten with a metal stick on his right foot, ankle and left thigh by his father, Bert. B.W. also stated he had been beaten by his father on many occasions in the past and that all the bruises visible on his body were the result of being beaten with a metal stick. B.W. was forced by his father to stand on one foot, and one hand in an unbalanced position. In that position, the father would strike him. B.W. also indicated that on several occasions Bert had stuck his 'bug' up B.W.'s 'butt' and in his mouth. B.W. pointed to the penis on an anatomically correct drawing of an unclothed boy when asked what 'bug' meant. B.W. stated that he had told his mother on many occasions that he had been beaten with the metal stick by Bert, but D never did anything about it. He also reported telling his mother about the incident on November 10, 1983, when he had been struck on the foot with the metal stick. At that time, D told him 'not to worry about it.' A doctor observed numerous bruises on the child's feet, upper and lower legs, lower and upper back, left arm and the side of his chest. The doctor stated that B.W. had been beaten on at least four separate occasions in the fairly recent past and that the beatings were inflicted with a metal stick or instrument. C.P., the daughter, stated that Bert regularly beat her and her brother at their home. Bert would beat her and B.W. so hard that the children would wet their pants. He allegedly would also make the children balance on one hand and one leg, and then he would take the hook end of the metal stick and trip them, causing them to fall down. C.P. told Sergeant Bies that sometime after Halloween in 1983, Bert hit her on the top of the head with the metal stick so hard that she bled. C.P. indicated that she had told D about the incident and that D had given her an ice pack for her head. Bert would put lotion from a yellow bottle on his 'wienie' and would then put his 'wienie' in her and B.W.'s 'butts.' C.P. also pointed to the penis on an anatomically correct drawing of an unclothed boy when asked what she meant by 'wienie.' C.P. further indicated that on occasion 'white stuff' would come out of Berts 'wiener' when he stuck it in the children's mouths, and when this happened, Bert would make them swallow the 'white stuff.' If they refused to do so, Bert would hit them. Bert would frequently take either a spoon or a cup, go inside the toilet bowl to remove some 'poopy,' and make the children eat it. If they refused to swallow it, Bert would strike them. C.P. said that she had told D about all of the sexual abuse incidents and beatings but that D did not do anything about it. D was bound over on the two counts of child abuse in violation of sec. 940.201, Stats. D filed a motion to dismiss the information. She claimed that she could not be charged with child abuse because she did not directly commit the abusive conduct. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. It concluded that the statute applies only to the intentional acts of a defendant who directly abuses a child. Thus, D's alleged failure to take any action to prevent her husband from abusing the children was not covered by the statute. P appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's order of dismissal. The court of appeals reasoned that D could have been bound over for aiding and abetting her husband's abuse of the children, even though the state had not proceeded on this theory. D appealed.