People v. Wong, 81 N.Y.2d 600 (1993)

A person’s criminal liability for failing to act (omission) requires proof that they were aware of the harmful act and understood the risk of failing to intervene.

Summary

Eugene and Mary Wong were convicted of manslaughter and endangering a child after a baby in their care died from shaken baby syndrome. The prosecution argued that even if one Wong didn’t shake the baby, they were still liable for failing to seek medical help. The New York Court of Appeals reversed both convictions. The court found insufficient evidence to prove that the “passive” defendant was aware that the baby had been violently shaken or understood the risk to the infant if they did not seek medical care. This case highlights the requirements for establishing criminal liability based on a failure to act when the actual perpetrator of the harm is unknown.

Facts

The Wongs were hired to provide 24-hour care for three-month-old Kwok-Wei. Kwok-Wei’s parents worked long hours and needed full-time childcare. One morning, Mary Wong called Kwok-Wei’s father to report that the baby was dead and “turned black.” Eugene Wong also called 911. The Wongs made inconsistent statements to the police about the events leading up to the baby’s death. An autopsy revealed that Kwok-Wei died from injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome. There were no external injuries.

Procedural History

The Wongs were indicted and tried for manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss, arguing both could be found guilty if one shook the baby and the other failed to intervene. The jury found both guilty on all counts. The Appellate Division modified the convictions, dismissing first-degree manslaughter, but upheld the other convictions. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the indictment against both defendants.

Issue(s)

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the “passive” defendant was aware that the infant had been violently shaken and understood the risk in failing to seek medical treatment.

Holding

No, because the evidence failed to establish that the “passive” defendant was aware of the abusive act or understood the risk to the infant if they did not seek medical attention.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that criminal liability can be based on an omission (failure to act) under Penal Law § 15.10, but only if there’s a legal duty to act. They affirmed that caregivers have a duty to seek medical care for children. However, the court emphasized that to convict the “passive” defendant, the prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant was personally aware of the shaking and understood the risk to the infant. The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the “passive” defendant’s awareness. The prosecution relied on the Wongs’ statements that they were both awake and tending to the baby during the period when the shaking likely occurred. However, the court found this too tenuous, noting neither defendant said they were *continuously* together. The court reasoned that one defendant could have left the room, and the abuser may have waited for this to occur before shaking the baby. The court dismissed arguments that the size of the apartment was relevant, as the “passive” defendant could have been in another room. The Court stated, “Manifestly, the ‘passive’ defendant’s ‘mere presence’ in the Wongs’ apartment at the time of the crime is insufficient to support a finding of criminal liability”. The court concluded that convicting both defendants when only one demonstrably committed the crime violated principles of personal accountability and the presumption of innocence.