Commonwealth v. Ogin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988 · Family Law

Family Lawsimple assaultendangering the welfare of childrenparental corporal punishmentjustificationsimple assaultbodily injurysubstantial pain

Facts

The convictions arose from three incidents involving appellants' very young daughter, April. In one, the mother grabbed April by one arm, dragged her, and flung her against a building, after which the child screamed for several minutes. In another, the mother twice struck April in the face with the back of her hand, the second time with extreme force so that April fell against a brick wall and developed a lump on her head. In the third, the father pushed a plate of hot spaghetti up into April's face when she did not eat, causing crying, swelling, and small burn marks.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for simple assault and endangering the welfare of children, and whether appellants' conduct was justified as parental corporal punishment. More specifically, the court considered whether April suffered bodily injury or substantial pain, whether appellants knowingly violated their duty to protect her, and whether the force used exceeded the parental privilege recognized by the Crimes Code.

Rule

Simple assault is established where a defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury, and substantial pain may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the use of force even without significant injury. Endangering the welfare of children is established when a parent knowingly endangers a child by violating a duty of care or protection, a provision interpreted broadly in light of common sense and its protective purpose. A parent may use force to discipline a child only if the force is used to safeguard or promote the child's welfare and is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, mental distress, or gross degradation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Erie, Nina Solis became angry when her 3-year-old son kept leaving the apartment lobby. She seized him by one wrist, yanked him across the concrete entryway, and shoved him hard into a metal mail panel. The child cried loudly for several minutes but had only slight redness by bedtime.

If Nina is charged with simple assault, which is the strongest argument for upholding the conviction?

Explanation. Simple assault is established if the defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury, and bodily injury includes substantial pain. Under the majority opinion, substantial pain may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the use of force even where injury is not significant or permanent. Here, dragging a young child by one wrist into a hard surface and the child's crying for several minutes support that inference.