## Facts

- Sylvia Torres Rolon was the mother of one-year-old Isaac; Isaac’s father, Anthony Bill Lopez, inflicted the fatal injuries.
- A court order prohibited Lopez from visiting or staying in Rolon’s apartment, barred any unmonitored contact between Lopez and the children, and specified Rolon could not serve as the monitor.
- Rolon nonetheless allowed Lopez to stay in the apartment for about a week before Isaac’s death.
- During an unannounced social-worker visit, Rolon concealed Lopez in a closet and told the worker he was not present.
- On the evening before Isaac died, Lopez immersed Isaac in a tub with water and chemicals and threw him against a wall in Rolon’s presence; Isaac stopped crying after hitting the wall.
- In the early morning hours, Isaac cried; after being fed and continuing to cry, Lopez punched Isaac in the chest. Rolon said she told Lopez to leave Isaac alone; Lopez told her to “shut up” and not get involved.
- A neighbor heard a child screaming and a series of thumps against the wall for about three minutes; the screams and thumps stopped at the same time.
- Rolon was prosecuted on theories including aiding and abetting an assault on a child causing death and implied malice second degree murder based on omission (failure to protect).
- A jury convicted Rolon; she appealed, challenging the legal basis for liability by omission, the sufficiency of the evidence, and (in an unpublished portion) the denial of a duress instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent may be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting a fatal assault, and for implied malice murder, based on failure to protect a young child from another’s abuse.
2. What mental state is required to treat a parent’s omission as aiding and abetting or implied malice.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported Rolon’s convictions under these omission-based theories.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held a parent has a legal duty to protect a young child and may incur criminal liability for an assault causing death on an aiding-and-abetting theory where, despite the ability to act, the parent intentionally fails to take reasonably necessary protective steps with the intent to facilitate the perpetrator’s assault.
- The court also upheld implied malice murder liability where the parent, aware of a life-endangering risk of abuse and able to act, consciously disregards the danger by failing to take reasonably necessary protective steps.
- The court found the evidence sufficient to support guilt under either theory, including Rolon’s violation of the protective order, concealment of Lopez from the social worker, presence during severe abuse, and circumstances permitting the inference that she perceived the ongoing violence and did not intervene.
- In the unpublished portion, the court upheld the trial court’s refusal to instruct on duress.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a legal duty to take reasonably necessary steps to protect their young children from harm.
- An omission can support aiding-and-abetting liability when the defendant has a legal duty and ability to act and intentionally fails to act with the purpose of facilitating the perpetrator’s offense.
- Implied malice may be established by omission where the defendant knows conduct or circumstances endanger life and, despite a duty and ability to protect, consciously disregards that danger.
- Substantial evidence review permits affirmance where a rational jury could infer intent to facilitate and conscious disregard from the defendant’s knowledge of escalating abuse, deliberate maintenance of the abuser’s access, and failure to intervene.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Rolon’s conviction, holding that a parent’s intentional failure to protect a young child—when the parent has a duty and ability to act—can constitute both aiding and abetting a fatal assault and implied malice second degree murder, and that the evidence supported liability on either theory.


People v. Rolon, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1206 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)