## Facts

- Daniel Ogg moved into Lynda Gabriella Ogg’s home when her daughter, A.R., was about six years old and repeatedly sexually abused A.R. for years.
- A.R. testified she told Ogg about the abuse at least twice, including around ages six and ten.
- After the later disclosure, Ogg told A.R. she could call the police or give Daniel “another chance,” and warned that if police were called, both adults would go to jail and the children would be placed in foster care.
- Around the same time, Daniel also told Ogg about his sexual conduct with A.R.
- Despite this information, Ogg kept Daniel in the home; she married him the following year, and the abuse continued until A.R. was about sixteen.
- In a post-arrest interview, Ogg admitted having awareness of recurring abuse and stated she feared losing her children if authorities became involved.
- Ogg’s mother testified that Ogg later said the children “would come and go,” but Daniel would be in Ogg’s life forever.
- The prosecution argued Ogg, as A.R.’s parent with an affirmative duty to protect, knowingly allowed Daniel continued access and discouraged reporting, thereby aiding and abetting the continuing sexual abuse.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported Ogg’s conviction for aiding and abetting continuous sexual abuse of a child, including proof that she knew the perpetrator’s criminal purpose.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that Ogg intended to, and did, aid, encourage, or facilitate the ongoing abuse, rather than merely failing to act as an adequate parent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and sentence.
- The court held there was substantial evidence that Ogg knew Daniel was repeatedly abusing A.R.
- The court held there was substantial evidence the jury could infer Ogg intended to facilitate the continuing abuse, based on her discouragement of reporting and continued maintenance of Daniel’s access to A.R.
- The court applied a deferential substantial-evidence standard and declined to reweigh credibility or competing inferences.

## Legal Principles

- Aider-and-abettor liability requires proof the defendant knew the perpetrator’s criminal purpose and intended to aid, encourage, or facilitate the commission of the offense.
- An aider and abettor need not personally commit the offense or share in its “fruits” to be liable.
- A parent’s common-law duty to protect a child may support aider-and-abettor liability where the parent knowingly fails to take reasonable protective steps with the purpose of aiding or facilitating the attack.
- On appeal for insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court assesses whether substantial evidence supports the verdict and does not reweigh witness credibility or resolve evidentiary conflicts.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the conviction because the record permitted a rational inference that Ogg knew of ongoing sexual abuse and, by discouraging reporting and maintaining the perpetrator’s access through continued cohabitation and marriage, intentionally facilitated the continuing offense rather than merely failing as a parent.


People v. Ogg, 219 Cal. App. 4th 173, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)