In re N.K., 153 A.3d 198

16-year-old juvenile (N.K.) was left by his mother overnight to care for his 4-year-old brother while she worked as a nurse’s aide.
Mother returned early morning to find the apartment filled with smoke, strong smell of marijuana, empty beer containers, and teenagers leaving; she called police.
Police observed signs of recent marijuana use and underage drinking throughout the ~600 sq. ft. apartment, and found marijuana-related paraphernalia in a closet.
Officers believed the juvenile was impaired (slurred speech, droopy/red/glassy eyes, unresponsive posture) and concluded he could not care for the child; they arrested him.
Juvenile was charged under RSA 639:3, I for knowingly endangering the welfare of a child by purposely violating a duty of care (caregiver impairment).
Trial court found him delinquent after an adjudicatory hearing; juvenile appealed arguing insufficient evidence both that he violated his duty of care (because the child was not actually harmed) and that he knowingly endangered the child.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Juvenile)	Held
Whether evidence showed juvenile violated duty of care by being impaired while caring for child	Impairment was proven by officer observations; impairment rendered juvenile incapable of caring for the child	Juvenile conceded duty but argued no evidence he failed to keep the child safe or that his impaired judgment left him incapable	Court: Evidence of intoxication (behavioral and physical signs) was sufficient to show he violated duty by being incapable of care
Whether conduct "endangered" the child’s welfare (statutory meaning)	Endangerment satisfied where behavior created an actual and significant risk to the child (consider totality of circumstances)	Argued risk was speculative/hypothetical and statute requires exposure to actual risk of harm (asserted higher threshold)	Court: "Endanger" means creating an actual and significant risk of injury; given child’s age, juvenile’s impairment, hazardous apartment conditions, and absence of protective measures, the risk was actual and significant; conviction affirmed

In re D.B., 164 N.H. 46 (discussing standard for viewing evidence in juvenile delinquency appeals)
State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514 (standard of review for sufficiency challenges is de novo)
State v. Bortner, 150 N.H. 504 (explains interplay of mens rea elements in RSA 639:3, I)
State v. Gilley, 168 N.H. 188 (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning and overall scheme)
State v. Yates, 152 N.H. 245 (courts avoid interpretations producing illogical results)
State v. Rodney Portigue, 125 N.H. 352 (previously sustained endangerment conviction where risk to child was proven)
Barnes v. Commonwealth, 622 S.E.2d 278 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (endorses fact-specific, totality-of-circumstances approach to caregiver impairment endangerment)
State Dept. of Human Servs. v. D.T.C., 219 P.3d 610 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (consideration of totality of circumstances in assessing reasonable likelihood of harm)
State v. Graham, 109 P.3d 285 (N.M. 2005) (caregiver intoxication can create risk supporting endangerment conviction)