116 N.E.3d 41
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- A complaint charged Santos with reckless endangerment of a child under G. L. c. 265, § 13L after her three‑year‑old daughter was found alone at a school playground about .2 miles (1,056 feet) from the defendant's apartment. Police learned the child had been found previously wandering on April 25, 2016.
- On May 13, 2016 the defendant told officers she had set the child in the living room to watch cartoons and gone upstairs to use the bathroom for ten to fifteen minutes; when she returned the child was gone and the apartment door was open with the deadbolt key inserted from the inside.
- The defendant said she searched for about ten minutes, "just assumed" the child was playing with a neighbor, did not call 911, and returned home; police later drove her to the school to be reunited with the child.
- The apartment had a deadbolt installed after the prior incident; the defendant said a teenage son might have left the key where the child could reach it.
- The District Court judge allowed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause; the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leaving the child alone briefly inside the home supports probable cause for reckless endangerment under § 13L | The prior wandering and brief unsupervised lapse show a substantial risk; defendant's inaction supports probable cause | Brief bathroom absence (10–15 min) inside the home, defendant accessible, deadbolt installed — not wanton or reckless | Leaving child briefly inside did not alone establish probable cause |
| Whether defendant's conduct after discovering the child was missing supports probable cause | Failing to continue searching, not calling police, and returning home show reckless omission and gross deviation from reasonable conduct | Time outside unknown; child may have been gone only minutes, so no substantial risk of serious bodily injury | Once defendant stopped searching, failed to call police, and had no plan to continue, probable cause existed for reckless omission |
| Whether actual harm must occur to prove § 13L offense | Commonwealth: proof of substantial risk suffices; harm need not materialize | Defendant: outcome (child found unharmed quickly) undermines culpability | Actual injury not required; substantial risk is the relevant inquiry |
| Whether protective measures taken after prior incident negate culpability | Commonwealth: prior measures don't absolve duty once child is missing | Defendant: deadbolt installation and reasonable steps taken mean no foreseeably substantial risk | Protective measures relevant but do not excuse failure to act once child wandered away |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Humberto H., 466 Mass. 562 (court sets probable cause standard for complaint dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Roman, 414 Mass. 642 (probable cause requires reasonably trustworthy information)
- Commonwealth v. Coggeshall, 473 Mass. 665 (§ 13L scope and departure from common‑law recklessness)
- Commonwealth v. Leonard, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 187 (pleading viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth on probable cause review)
- Commonwealth v. Hendricks, 452 Mass. 97 (recklessness requires more than negligence and involves substantial risk)
- Barnes v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 105 (parental failure to search/continued inaccessibility may support reckless endangerment)
- State v. Maurice M., 303 Conn. 18 (supervision inside home alone insufficient, on its own, to prove risk of injury)
- State v. Riggs, 2 S.W.3d 867 (leaving young child unsupervised outdoors supported child endangerment)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 251 (§ 13L requires proof of substantial risk, not actual injury)