Commonwealth v. Raposo – Parental Duty to Protect
Commonwealth v. Raposo, 413 Mass. 182, 595 N.E.2d 773 (Mass. 1992).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a criminal conviction of accessory before the fact to rape and to indecent assault and battery on a mentally retarded person.
FACTS: Raposo is the mother of a mildly retarded daughter who was seventeen at the time of the incidents. Raposo’s boyfriend lived with Raposo and her daughter for two months and told Raposo that he intended to have sexual intercourse with her daughter. Raposo expressed neither encouragement nor discouragement and did not respond to the threats about her daughter. The boyfriend raped the daughter four times and on at least one occasion Raposo pounded on the closed unlocked door and told the boyfriend to stop. Raposo appealed her conviction before the trial court for being an accessory before the fact.
ISSUE: Does an omission by a parent to act to protect her minor children infer an intent to bring about a crime such that the parent is guilty of being an accessory before the fact?
RULE OF LAW: No. An omission by a parent to act to protect her minor children does not infer an intent to bring about a crime such that the parent is guilty of being an accessory before the fact.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The state argues that the mother had an affirmative common law duty to protect her child from harm and that her failure to take reasonable steps to fulfill that duty was an omission sufficient to make her liable as an accessory. The state contends that such conduct aided the rapist in his perpetration of the crime. We however, must decline to follow that line of reasoning as our law by its very terms requires more than an omission to act to be liable as an accessory before the fact. Our case law makes clear that Raposo must have actually aided in the commission of the felony or counseled, hired, or otherwise procured someone to commit it. The state failed to show that Raposo aided, counseled, hired, or procured the boyfriend to commit rape and indecent assault or that she took any other action which would constitute participation in the commission of these crimes against her daughter. The fact that she knew of the boyfriend’s intent and took not steps to protect her daughter does not make her guilty of being an accessory before the fact.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.
CONCURRING: This is a matter for the state legislature to decide. Some states expressly identify the crime as the violation of a duty of care or protection. There is no doubt that parents owe a duty of care to their children.