Com. v. Gooden, D.
Com. v. Gooden, D. No. 435 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- In March 2014 Gooden, his girlfriend (Velez), and her three young sons lived together; Gooden had lived with them ~6–9 months and helped care for the children (drove them to school, cooked, assisted with homework).
- On March 29–30, 2014 Gooden physically and verbally attacked Velez, demanded money, took her phone/keys, spat on and struck her, and threatened to kill her and her children.
- When police arrived early March 30, Gooden barricaded the apartment door, tried to silence and choke Velez (pillow, hands over mouth/nose, washcloth) and threatened the children to keep them from opening the door.
- Officers forced entry; Velez had visible injuries (lacerated lip requiring stitches, bruising) and the oldest child testified he was traumatized.
- A jury convicted Gooden of Unlawful Restraint (18 Pa.C.S. §2902(a)(1)), Simple Assault, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (18 Pa.C.S. §4304(a)(1)); trial court sentenced him to 5–10 years; convictions were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gooden was a “person supervising the welfare of a child” for §4304 | Commonwealth: Gooden lived with and performed caretaking functions for the children, so he had a duty of care | Gooden: he was merely the mother’s boyfriend with virtually no parental/guardian role | Court: affirmed — his residence and regular caretaking (driving, cooking, helping schoolwork) sufficed to be a person supervising the welfare of a child |
| Whether children’s welfare was endangered under §4304 | Commonwealth: conduct (barricading, assaulting mother in children’s presence, threats) placed children in circumstances threatening physical/psychological wellbeing | Gooden: children were mere bystanders; no physical injury to children, so no endangerment | Court: affirmed — statutory standard does not require physical injury or imminent harm; evidence showed awareness of duty, awareness of danger to children, and failure/actions that failed to protect them (trauma testified) |
| Whether evidence supported Unlawful Restraint conviction (deprivation of freedom or exposure to serious bodily injury) | Commonwealth: Gooden physically restrained, threatened, kept keys/phone, barricaded door, assaulted and choked Velez — exposing her to risk of serious bodily injury and depriving her freedom to leave | Gooden: victim was in her own apartment and not truly deprived of freedom or exposed to serious risk | Court: affirmed — defendant’s threats, physical restraint, barricading, and assaults satisfied unlawful restraint (deprivation of freedom and risk of serious bodily injury) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 721 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 1998) (adult voluntarily residing with and caring for child can be a person supervising the child)
- Commonwealth v. Lynn, 114 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2015) (§4304 supervisory definition construed broadly to protect children)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 817 A.2d 485 (Pa. Super. 2002) (§4304 does not require actual physical injury or imminent physical harm)
- Commonwealth v. Retkofsky, 860 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Super. 2004) (elements to prove child endangerment: duty, awareness of threatening circumstances, and failure/ineffective protective action)
- Commonwealth v. Moody, 441 A.2d 371 (Pa. Super. 1982) (unlawful restraint supported where victim was forcibly detained, threatened, and struck)
- Commonwealth v. Schilling, 431 A.2d 1088 (Pa. Super. 1981) (unlawful restraint requires placing another in actual danger of serious bodily injury)