## Facts

- A one-year-old child, Lamont Walden, suffered numerous cuts and bruises causing severe blood loss and requiring hospitalization and a transfusion.
- A neighbor heard prolonged screaming and a “popping” sound from the apartment for roughly one to one-and-a-half hours and contacted police.
- Police executed a search warrant at the apartment and found Aleen Estes Walden (the child’s mother), George Hoskins, other adults, and five small children; officers observed injuries on the children.
- Three child witnesses testified Hoskins repeatedly struck Lamont with a belt and that Walden was in the room, watched, and did nothing to stop it.
- Walden testified that Hoskins and the children were away, the child’s father was the assailant, and she attempted to intervene but was struck.
- Walden was indicted and tried for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury; the State proceeded on an aiding-and-abetting theory based on her failure to intervene.
- The trial court instructed that a parent has a duty to protect her child and that the jury could find aiding and abetting if Walden was present, observed the assault, and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
- The jury convicted Walden, and the trial court imposed a 5–10 year sentence; the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial based on the instruction, and discretionary review was granted.

## Issues

1. Whether a mother may be convicted of felonious assault as an aider and abettor based on being present while her child is assaulted and failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the assault.
2. Whether the jury instructions improperly permitted conviction on mere presence rather than requiring conduct amounting to aiding and abetting.
3. Whether child abuse and assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury are lesser-included of each other for former-jeopardy purposes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that a parent who is present during an attack on her child and fails to take all steps reasonably possible to protect the child may be guilty as an aider and abettor.
- The court upheld the trial court’s instruction as correctly distinguishing mere presence from presence coupled with breach of a legal duty to act.
- The court stated that child abuse and assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury are not lesser-included offenses of each other; a conviction or acquittal of one does not bar prosecution for the other on former-jeopardy grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Mere presence at a crime scene, even with knowledge, generally does not establish aiding and abetting.
- When the law imposes an affirmative duty to act, a failure to act may constitute criminal participation through an omission.
- A parent has an affirmative legal duty, recognized at common law and by statute, to protect a minor child from harm.
- A parent’s presence during an assault on the child, combined with a failure to take reasonable available protective steps, may constitute an omission showing consent to and contribution to the crime sufficient for aiding-and-abetting liability.
- For double-jeopardy analysis, offenses that are not lesser-included of each other do not bar successive prosecution based solely on overlap in underlying conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that a parent is not a mere bystander to violence against her child: if present and able to act, the parent’s failure to take reasonable protective measures can constitute aiding and abetting, supporting conviction for the underlying assault committed by another.


State v. Walden, 306 N.C. 466 (N.C. 1982)