State v. Hocter, 2011 MT 251

Hocter was charged with attempted deliberate homicide (and alternative attempted mitigated deliberate homicide) relating to injuries to S.B., the infant; later plea negotiations led to an agreement to plead guilty to aggravated assault and criminal endangerment,
Hocter admitted in a plea colloquy that she struck S.B. against a crib and failed to seek medical aid,
Hocter left S.B. in distress after injuring her, could not find a phone, and waited for her boyfriend to return so help could be called,
S.B. sustained permanent injuries including blindness and long-term impairments,
The State and Hocter agreed to amend the information in November 2009; the district court accepted the guilty pleas but later refused to adopt the plea agreement, leading to trial where the endangerment charge was challenged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the criminal endangerment charge properly dismissed for insufficient notice?	Hocter	Hocter contends notice was insufficient; information did not specify omission vs. affirmative conduct.	No error; notice adequate; theories disclosed six months earlier.
Did the district court correctly instruct on endangerment based on omission to act?	Hocter	Hocter argues no duty to act was established; instruction overstated duty.	District court did not err; duty to act existed under law and was properly instructed.

State ex rel. Kuntz v. Montana Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2000 MT 22 (2000) (establishes duties for liability to act; six exceptions to no-duty rule)
State v. Powers, 198 Mont. 289 (1982) (parental duty recognized for failure to aid or obtain care)
State v. Hoffman, 196 Mont. 268 (1982) (parental liability for failure to obtain medical aid)
State v. Miranda, 245 Conn. 209, 715 A.2d 680 (1998) (duty to protect child extended to non-biological caregivers)
People v. Wong, 182 A.D.2d 98, 588 N.Y.S.2d 119 (1992) (failure to provide care by a caregiver can support liability)