## Facts

- Debby Ogin and Glynn Wildoner, parents of an infant daughter, April, were prosecuted for incidents occurring when April was under two years old.
- In summer 1983, a neighbor testified that Ogin dragged April by one arm, then flung her against a building so that her back hit the wall and she stumbled into cement steps; April screamed for several minutes.
- On December 20, 1983, witnesses at a firehouse event testified that, while standing in a Santa Claus line, Ogin twice backhanded April in the face when April reached to be picked up; the second blow allegedly caused April to fall into a brick wall and develop a lump on her head.
- In early 1984, testimony indicated Wildoner shoved hot spaghetti into April’s face when she did not promptly eat, causing swelling and burn marks.
- A jury convicted Ogin of two counts of simple assault and two counts of endangering the welfare of children, and convicted Wildoner of one count of simple assault and one count of endangering the welfare of children.
- The parents denied abuse and challenged witness credibility, but the jury credited the Commonwealth’s witnesses.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove “bodily injury” (impairment of physical condition or substantial pain) required for simple assault under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove endangering the welfare of children under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4304, including knowing violation of a parental duty of care that endangered the child’s welfare.
3. Whether the conduct was justified as reasonable parental discipline under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 509.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania (en banc) affirmed all convictions.
- The court held the evidence supported findings of “bodily injury” because substantial pain could be inferred from the nature of the force, the child’s age, observable injuries, and the child’s reactions, without medical testimony or permanent injury.
- The court held the evidence supported endangering the welfare of children because the conduct showed knowing violations of parental duties that placed the child’s welfare at risk.
- The court rejected the § 509 justification defense because the force described by the witnesses could reasonably be found excessive and beyond reasonable corporal punishment.
- Applying the sufficiency standard, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and deferred to the jury on credibility and weight.

## Legal Principles

- “Bodily injury” for simple assault includes “substantial pain” and may be proven by circumstantial evidence; medical evidence is not required.
- In assessing sufficiency, an appellate court views the record and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and does not reweigh credibility.
- Endangering the welfare of children under § 4304 focuses on knowing violation of a duty of care that endangers a child’s welfare; actual serious injury need not be shown.
- The parental-discipline justification in § 509 permits only reasonable force and does not extend to force designed to cause, or known to create a substantial risk of causing, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or mental distress.
- Whether parental force is “reasonable” discipline or criminally excessive is generally for the fact-finder based on the circumstances, including the child’s vulnerability.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed convictions for simple assault and endangering the welfare of children, holding that substantial pain and bodily injury could be inferred from witness testimony and circumstances, and that the parental-discipline privilege did not justify force a jury could find dangerous and excessive when used on a very young child.


Commonwealth v. Ogin, 540 A.2d 549 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) (en banc)