## Facts

- A three-and-a-half-year-old child was hospitalized in a comatose state with extensive bruising and serious injuries caused by her mother’s repeated physical abuse.
- The mother was prosecuted and convicted for multiple abuse offenses based on her direct acts.
- The father was charged as a party to the crimes of (1) intentional physical abuse of a child and (2) reckless physical abuse of a child, under a theory that he aided and abetted the mother’s abuse.
- The State’s proof against the father focused on his presence during some incidents, failure to intervene, failure to report abuse, and failure to fully disclose the cause of the injuries to medical personnel.
- Witness testimony indicated the father did not physically abuse the child and had a loving relationship with her.
- A jury convicted the father on both counts; the court of appeals reversed for insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting, noting the evidence better fit a separate failure-to-act offense that was not charged.

## Issues

1. Whether party-to-a-crime liability for intentional and reckless child abuse requires proof of affirmative conduct that objectively aids the abuse, plus intent to provide such aid.
2. Whether parental presence, failure to intervene or report, and limited cooperation with medical personnel can alone satisfy aiding-and-abetting elements for the charged child-abuse offenses.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of both convictions.
- The court held the State failed to prove the elements required for aiding and abetting the charged child-abuse crimes.
- The court rejected the State’s attempt to treat omission-based conduct (presence and failure to act) as sufficient “aid” under the party-to-a-crime statute.
- The court emphasized that omission-based liability is addressed by a separate statute criminalizing failure to act to prevent harm to a child, which the State did not charge.

## Legal Principles

- For aiding-and-abetting liability, the State must prove: (1) the defendant undertook some verbal or overt conduct that, as an objective fact, aided another in committing the crime; and (2) the defendant acted with a conscious desire or intent that the conduct provide such assistance.
- Mere presence at the scene, knowledge of wrongdoing, failure to intervene, failure to report, or other inaction—without affirmative assistance—does not establish aiding and abetting.
- Where the legislature creates a distinct omission-based offense for failing to act to prevent harm to a child, the prosecution cannot replace that uncharged offense with party-to-a-crime liability for substantive abuse offenses that require affirmative conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that convictions for aiding and abetting intentional or reckless child abuse cannot rest on parental presence and inaction alone; the State must prove affirmative assistance and intent to aid, and omission-based conduct must be prosecuted, if at all, under the specific failure-to-act statute.


State v. Rundle, 500 N.W.2d 916 (Wis. 1993)