### J. S10027/17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DWAYNE GOODEN, : : Appellant : No. 435 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 7, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP
- 51 - CR - 0005197 - 2014 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and SOLANO, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 17, 2017 Appellant, Dwayne Gooden, appeals from the January 7, 2016 Judgment of Sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s Opinion, which found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s convictions for Endangering the Welfare of a Child and Unlawful Restraint. The trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and complete narrative of the facts and procedural history of this case, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/20/16, at 2 - 7. While we will not go into exhaustive detail here, some of the relevant facts are as follows. In 2013 and 2014, Appellant lived with his then girlfriend Zoraya Velez (“Victim Mother”) and her three young so ns (“Victim Children”). Appellant

### J. S10027/17

- 2 -

drove the Victim Children to school, cooked meals for the Victim Children, helped them with schoolwork, and generally contributed to the care of the three Victim Children. From the evening of March 29, 2014 to the early morning hours of March 30, 2014, Appellant subjected his victims to a campaign of escalating threats and physical abuse. Appellant demanded money from Victim Mother, spat in her face, smacked her, and threatened to kill her. He told Victim Mother that s he could not leave the apartment or phone for help, and he took her phone and keys from her. Around 5:00 am, after Appellant fell asleep, Victim Mother retrieved her phone, called the front desk of her building, and asked for help. At approximately 5:30 a m, police responded to the apartment and knocked on the door. The knocking woke Appellant, who began barricading the door with a bedframe and other large objects. Appellant then went after Victim Mother, holding a pillow over her face. He pinned her to the bed, cutting off her ability to breathe. Although she briefly wrestled free, Appellant tackled her to the floor, covering her mouth with his hands and later forcing a dirty washcloth into her mouth to prevent her from calling out for help. Victim Moth er tried to scream, and called for her sons to open the front door to get help. Appellant called the Victim Children “motherfuckers,” told them he would kill them if they went near the front door, and then

### J. S10027/17

- 3 -

continued assaulting their mother, dragging her a cross the apartment floor in view of the boys. The oldest of the Victim Children, Z.Z., who was 11 or 12 years old on the night of the attack, testified at trial that he felt traumatized by the incident. It took the collective efforts of seven or eight o fficers, kicking the door and utilizing a crowbar, to finally gain entry into the apartment. On the other side of Appellant’s makeshift barricade, Victim Mother lay bleeding in the corner of the apartment, suffering injuries to her chest, hands, neck, kne e, head and face. A laceration in her bottom lip required stitches. Appellant, who was fugitive on unrelated charges, refused to comply with the officers who entered the apartment. He was taken into custody at gunpoint, and charged with Attempted Murde r, Aggravated Assault, Unlawful Restrain, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and related charges. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial. On October 23, 2015, the jury found Appellant guilty of Unlawful Restraint, Simple Assault, and Endangering the Welfar e of a Child. 1 

### On January 7, 2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant to five to ten years of incarceration. On February 1, 2016, Appellant timely
- filed the instant appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, App ellant raises two issues:

1 

### 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2902(a)(1), 2701(a), and 4304(a)(1), respectively.

### J. S10027/17

- 4 -

1. Was not the evidence insufficient to establish endangering the welfare of children [] where Appellant did not meet the definition of a “person supervising the welfare of a child,” and there was insufficient evidence that the we lfare of a child was, in any event, endangered? 2. Was not [A]ppellant erroneously convicted of unlawful restraint [] as there was insufficient evidence either that he exposed the complainant, Zoraya Velez, to actual risk of serious bodily injury or that s he was deprived of her freedom to leave her apartment. Appellant’s Brief at 3. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is as follows:

The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine wh ether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom is sufficient for the trier of fact to find that each element of the crimes charged is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any dou bt raised as to the accused's guilt is to be resolved by the fact
- finder. As an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight to any of the testimony of record. Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. Commonwealth v. Vogelsong , 90 A.3d 717, 719 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations and quotations omitted).

### J. S10027/17

- 5 -

In his first issue, challenging his convi ction for Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Appellant presents two distinct arguments. First, Appellant avers that he did not meet the required definition of a “person supervising the welfare of a child” because the evidence at trial showed Appellant “w as merely present in [the children’s] apartment in the role as the mother’s boyfriend” and that Appellant and the Victim Children had “virtually no relationship at all.” Appellant’s Brief at 15. The Honorable Diana L. Anhalt has authored a comprehensive , thorough, and well
- reasoned Opinion, citing to the record and relevant case law in addressing Appellant’s claims. After a careful review of the parties’ arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which held that Appellant met the definition of a “person supervising the welfare of a child” because he voluntarily resided with the Victim Children for nearly a year and took on an active role helping with the Victim Children including driving them to school, preparing meals for them, a nd assisting with schoolwork. Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/2/16, at 7
- 9. Second, Appellant avers that, because the Victim Children were “merely bystanders” to his assault on their mother, his actions did not endanger their welfare. Appellant’s Brief at 1 6. Judge Anhalt’s Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well
- reasoned discussion of this claim, with citations to the record and relevant case law. After a careful review of the parties’ arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of

### J. S10027/17

- 6 -

that Opinion, which found that Appellant placed the Victim Children “in a situation that threatened their physical or psychological welfare” and ultimately traumatized the Victim Children when he barricaded them in the apartment, assaulted their mother in thei r presence, and referred to the children as “motherfuckers” and threatened to kill them when they attempted to help their mother. Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/2/16, at 9
- 11. In his second issue, Appellant challenges his conviction for Unlawful Restraint o n the grounds that “the Commonwealth failed to prove that [A]ppellant exposed [Victim Mother] to a risk of serious bodily injury or that [Victim Mother] was deprived of her freedom to leave her apartment[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 17. Judge Anhalt’s Opinion includes a comprehensive, thorough, and well
reasoned discussion of this claim, with citations to the record and relevant case law. After a careful review of the parties’ arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion, which found that Appellant (i) detained Victim Mother against her will by physically restraining her, threatening her and her children, and barricading the door; and (ii) exposed Victim Mother to the risk of serious bodily injury when he “spat in her face, smacked her, an d tried to silence her screams by holding a pillow over her face, holding his hands over her mouth and nose, shoving a washcloth in her mouth, and choking her.” Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/20/16, at 11
- 12.

### J. S10027/17

- 7 -

The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s June 2, 2016 Opinion to all future filings. Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/17/2017

# II II !Im 11111111 11111111 7476302241 a. The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for e ndan g erin g the w elfare of a child where the C o mmonwealth fail e d t o pres e nt eviden ce that Appellant was a parent, guardian, or pers o n supervising the welfare o f an y o f the c omp l ainant 's children , and therefore he did not vi o late any duty of care , protecti o n , or supp o rt. b. The evidence w as insufficient t o support a conv ic tion for e ndan g erin g the w elfare o f a child where the evidence fai l ed t o establi s h that th e w el fare of an y child w as endang e red durin g th e alle g ed incident between Appellant and th e co mplain an t , Zoraya Velez. CP
- 5 1 - CR -000 5 1 9 7 - 201 4 C omrn. V. Gooden , Dw a yne O pi n i on Complained of on Appeal. Appellant raises the foll o wing ar g uments o n app e al: the Notes of Testim o ny. On June 2 , 2016, Appellant filed a Supplem e ntal Stat eme nt o f Err o rs of Time to File a Supplemental Statement of Err o rs Complained o f o n Appeal up o n Re c e i pt o f Appellant filed both a Statement of Errors Complained o f o n Appeal and a Petition fo r Exte n s i o n Appellant filed a timely notice of app e al on F ebruary 1 , 2 0 16. On Marc h 15, 201 6 , any sentence currently being served. 2016, this Court sentenced Appellant to five to ten years of incarceration t o run c o nsecuti vel y t o 270l(a), and Endangering the Welfare of a Child under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a ) (l )
. On January 7 , Unlawful Restraint under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2902(a)(l), Simple Assault under 18 Pa.CS.A .§ On October 23, 2015, ajury found Dwayne Gooden (hereinafter "Appellant " ) guil ty o f

OVERVIEW

AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY July 20, 2016 ANHALT,J. OPINION

DWAYNE GOODEN CP-51-CR-0005197-2014 v. Appeals/Post Trial Office of Judicial Records COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

# FILED JUL 2 O 2016 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION . --~ · . · · : <· =· ~- - - - · . · =. Circulated 01/30/2017 10:13 AM2

N.T. 10/2 3 /15 at 16 , 27. standing in the cente r of the apartment , and thre e children in a bedr o om. I d. at 56 , 70 , 71 , 20 8 ; 10/22/15 at 5 5. T hey saw a woman laying on the flo o r in a c o m er o f the apartment , a man multiple bins , bo x es, and a metal bedframe had been placed in front o f the entry d oo r. N.T. 67-68; N.T. 10/23/15 at 25-26. When the officer s entered the apartment, the y obs e rv ed that kicking the door while one officer used a crowbar to pry the do o r o pen . N.T. 10/2 2/ 1 5 at 5 4 , 55 , 51 , 209; N. T. 10/23/15 at 14. In order to gain entry, it took the eff o rts o f seven or eight o fficer s sounding voice say something through the door along the lines of , "[i ] t's fine, he ' s g o ne. " I d. at 

### Id. at 205. While trying to open the do o r, multip l e officers testified t o hearing a fe mininescreams to the point where [she was] scared of what was going on on the o ther side o f that d o or. " Several additional officers responded, including Officer Vandell Cook , w h o heard "g ut backup. 

### Id. at 51-52. and movement inside, the officers decided to forcibly open the locked do o r and called for movement and "what sounded like a yelp, like a scream ... " Id. at 51. After hearing mo r e yelp s awake and moving around inside. Id. at 50-51. The officers knocked hard e r , hearing more harder, Officer Farnan heard a "rumbling" inside the apartment and c o uld hear that s o meone was partner arrived at the residence, they knocked and received no response. Id. at 50. After knocking Apartment 703. Notes of Testimony (N.T.) 10/22/15 at 48-49. When Officer Farnan and his Matthew Farnan received a radio call to respond to a domestic incident at 2411 North l l " Street, On March 30, 2014, around 5:30 a. rn . , Philadelphia Housing Authority Police Officer FACTS c. The evidence was insuffici e nt to support a c o n v i c tion for unlawful restr ain t of Zoray a Velez where the Commonwealth failed to establish that she was deprived of her freedom to leave the apartment or that she was placed in danger of suffering seri o us bodily injury. j !3

O ffice r F arnan te s tified that the w o man , co mplain an t Zora ya Vel ez, was h yst ericall y cry ing and had ri p ped clothing, a bl o ody lip , lac e r ati o ns o n h er fa ce and h an ds, and brui ses o n h er arm s and ne ck. 

### N.T. 10/22/ 15 at 5 6 , 57 ? 

### 72
. O ffic er Coo k si mi l arl y t estifie d th at s h e w as

" cowerin g and bal le d up in the come r , " b l oo d y and s haki n g unc o ntr o llabl y, and see min gly in sh oc k. Id. at 208- 09. Offi ce r Coo k also t es tified th at the complain ant 's br a an d br eas t were
ex p o sed as a result of her ripped t ank

- to p , so th e offi cer cove red h er with a tow el or s he e t. I d at 222
. O f fi ce r C oo k then h e ld the c o mp l ain ant in her 

### lap whi le s h e c ri e d and to ld th e of fic e r that she th o u g h t s h e was g oin g t o di e. 

### Id. at 208 -09. Me anwhile , o ffi cers o rdered App e ll ant t o ge t on th e ground , but he refu s ed
. N.T
. 1 0/23/ 1 5 at 2 7
. So , O f

fi ce r D e nni s St e v en s held App e ll an t at gunp o int in o r d er to re s train him , at
w hi c h p o in t the officers t oo k him in t o c u s tod y . 

### I d T h ey b ro u g ht Ap pellan t in fo r b oo kin g , whil e Of ficer s Coo k and Lankfor d t o o k th e c omp lainan t to Templ e Uni ve r s ity Hos pital. 

### N .T. 10/22/15

at 58 , 223 ; 

### N.T. 10/2 3/ 1 5 at 65 -66. Th e compl ai n an t an d h er so n , Zackarie , eac h t e s ti fie d as t o what th ey wi tn e s s ed i ns id e th e
ap artm e n t whi l e the poli ce we r e trying to gain e ntry . N. T. 10/22/ 15 at 73 , 1 0 9. A t the tim e o f thi s in c ident , Za ckari e was 11 o r 12 years old an d had b ee n li vi n g at hi s moth e r ' s ap artme nt with his

m o th e r , hi s tw o you ng e r b roth e r s , an d hi s m o th e r ' s ex -bo yfri end , Ap pellan t. 

### I d. at 7 5, 77
. Zac kari e te stifi e d th at App e llant had be e n l iv in g with th e m fo r an ywhe re b etwe en s i x and nine

m o n ths pri o r t o M arc h 30 , 2 0 1 4
. 

### Id. at 88. Z a ckari e also testi fi e d that h e li ke d App e llant an d

co nsidere d him a frie nd , and th at Appe llant some ti mes drove Z ac karie t o sc h o ol, coo ked Z a c kari e dinner , and g en er all y h e lp e d th e co mpl ai nan t and the chi ldr e n aro und th e h o u se. 

### I d. at 89

- 9 0. I I

. · . · . · - :-~: . ·•· ·. -l - .4

Zackarie testified that on the morn i ng of March 30, 2014 , he was a wo ke n by th e police knocking on the door. Id. at 77- 78. At that point, he witnessed Appellant run out o f th e maste r bedroom and yell to the police in a high-pitched voice , "[h] e' s running down the step s . " Id. Zackarie explained that , although pl a cing bins in front of the d oo r was s o mething the family did every night, Appellant added additional objects that morning, including a metal bar from the door and a box spring, so that the police could not open the door. id. at 82-83. While the o ffic e r s were banging on the door , Zackaries younger brother tried to remove the objects b lo cking the door, but Appellant said , " [g]et back in y our room." Id. at 8 3
. Afterw ard, Zackarie recall e d Appellant telling the complainant to " shut up" before dragging h e r across the apartment. 

### I d. at 80-81. Then, Appellant said he was going to try to jump out of the w indow, e ven th o ugh the apartment's windows were barred, and told the children to return t o their rooms and not to open the front door. 

### Id. at 81. When the police entered the apartment, Zackarie re called s eeing hi s mother bloody and in a "hysterical" condition, screaming that Appellant h a d held her hostage and had not let her leave the apartment. id. at 79, 104. Zackarie testified t o feeling "traum atized " by the incident and "confused" by his mother's bloody 

### 1i p. 

### Id. at 85. The complainant testified that Appellant was her bo y fri e nd at the tim e o f the inciden t, and that he stay ed with her and her sons o n and o ff be tween April 2013 and March 3 0, 20 1 4. I d. at 110-11, 140. She explained that they w ere supportiv e o f e a ch oth er and that Appellant help e d care for her children, including cooking for them and helping them with their sch oo lw o rk. 

### I d. at 139-40. She testified that she became afraid o f Appellan t after learning that h e wa s i n fu g itive status. N.T. 10/22/ 15 at 141. Indeed, in Janu ary 2014, Appellant w a s c o nvicted o f po s se ss in g a firearm i n violation o f 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105 ( a), D o cket Number CP- 5 1-CR-0000 6 48-2012 , but had failed to appear for s e nte ncing in February 2014. :--·· -: : - : ~ ~ - : -~- "'- -: · . · .

_. : - ::--:-~ ~5

Th e co mp l ai nant s tate d th at o n th e afte rn oon o f M arc h 29 , 2 01 4 , h er thr ee so ns l eft th e
apartm e n t t o stay ove rni g h t with th e i r fath er. 

### I d. at 1 14
. L ate r th at d ay , App e llan t ques ti one d the

co mpl ain ant ab o u t he r fi nances and e x pre sse d a n e e d fo r m o ne y . 

### I d. at 1 1 5
. H e s p at i n h er face , smacke d her , and to l d h er h e was go i n g t o kill h e r. I d at 1 16 -1 7
. F earin g for h e r s af e ty , s h e cal l e d h e r ch ildre n ' s fath e r an d a s ke d hi m to brin g th e chi l dr en ba ck that e ve nin g . 

### Id. at 11 5
. Sh e
ex p lain e d th at s he c o uld n o t as k h e r ex- hu s band fo r h elp o r t e ll h i m t o c all th e p ol i c e b e cau se Appe llan t wa s h o l di ng th e phon e whi le s h e s p oke
. 

### I d. at 14 6
. A ft er th e chil dre n arri v e d h o m e , Ap p e llan t d e mand e d child s upp o rt mo n e y that th e c o mpl ain ant had r ecei v e d fr o m h er exhu s band an d had l eft at a n e i ghb or ' s hou se . 

### Id. at 1 4 7, 11 8. T he y l e ft th e apartment t o get the

m o n ey, and , w h e n th ey arri v e d h om e , App e llant kept th e co mpl ai n ant ' s keys and c ell ph o n e. 

### I d.

at 118
. Wh e n th e y w e n t t o b e d , Ap pe llant w atc h e d th e co mp lain ant th e e ntire ni g h t and to ld h er th at s he wa s n ot g o i ng t o g o an ywher e o r cal l an yo n e, and that b e w a s g o in g to h o ld o n to h er p h o ne and ke y s . 

### Id. at 1 18 , 1 20. S h e l ay aw ake th e en ti r e night a s App e ll ant w atc h e d h e r , and h e did n o t fall as le e p unti l abo ut 5: 00 a . m. 

### Id. at 1 20

- 21
. A t th at p o in t , s h e g rabbed h e r ph o n e fr o m App ell an t and c alle d th e fr o nt de sk o f h e r buildin g b e cau s e s he w an te d Ap p e llant e sco rted ou t of h e r ap artm e nt. I d at 12 1. Wh e n p oli ce kno cke d o n th e d oor , Appe ll an t awo ke an d s ai d an g ril y , " [y ] o u cal led th e
c op s? " 

### I d. at 1 22
. H e th e n we nt t o th e d oo r an d pla c e d a b e d fr arn e w h ere the b in s wer e al re a dy po s iti o n ed
. I

d. at 12 5. Ap p e llant th e n r etu rne d t o th e b e dr oo m and g rabb e d the comp lain an t , te lling h er t o b e quiet s o that th e p o l i ce w ou ld l e av e . 

### Id. at 1 22
. Sh e yell e d fo r h e lp , p ro mpti ng Appellant to pu s h h e r d o wn o n th e b ed and h o l d a p ill ow ov er h e r face. I d. S he tri e d to fi g h t ba c k

an d s c ream fo r h e l p , bu t b eg an to l ose ai r. I d. E v e n tuall y , s h e w as able to bre ak fre e and tri e d t o
ru n , bu t App ell ant g rabb e d her an d g ot o n to p o f h er , sh o ving hi s h and o n her m o u th and n ose in . . - ~. - .-.- - - - · . · . · .. - :,6

The co mplainan t te sti fied th at sh e then went to th e Cen tral Det e ctiv e Divi s ion to give a
s t atem e nt and be phot o graphed. N
. T. 10/2 2/ 1 5 at 1 32-3 3
. She had oth e r injurie s th at were n o t vi s ibl e in th e pic tu r es t aken b y dete c tiv es, incl u din g bruising th at be g an th e ne xt day and bumps

o n h er head that were co nceal e d by he r hair. I d. at 136. 

### In s p i te o f thi s , s h e w as unsure wh e th e r t o press ch arg es ag ain st A ppellan t b e caus e o f their rel ati o nship, e ven though thi s w as n ot th e first o r der t o silen ce h e r. Id. at 122-23. T hen, the co mplainant b it App e llant and h e bi t her b ac k. I d. at 12 3
. N ext, h e s h o v e d a d i rty , wet w as hcl o th in t o he r mouth and put hi s oth e r hand on h e r no s e while h o lding her d o wn o n th e fl o o r with his b o dy and e lb o w s. I d. She ke pt tryi ng t o s cre am, and c all e d fo r h e r so n s to o p e n the fr o nt d oo r, bu t App e ll an t t ol d th e m s o mething al o ng the lin es o f, " ( g ]et o ut of h e r e, yo u m o therfucke r s . D o n 't op e n th e d o or. Go ba ck to yo ur bedro o m or I'll kill all o f you ." 

### Id at 1 2 4-25 , 1 9 0-91. The c hildre n ran to th e ir roo ms an d Appellant t oo k the c omplainan t by the thr oat with b o th hand s , li fte d h er up i n th e
air , and threw her d o wn o n the bed , c o ntinu i n g to choke h er with b o th hand s. Id. at 126
. Sh e b e cam e unab le to bre ath e and , beli ev in g s h e was go ing t o die , b eg an to pray t o God. 

### I d. at 127. App e llant th e n t o ld her h e w as going t o ki ll h e r " be cause i f he was g o ing ba c k to j ail , it wa s g oin g t o be for s o m e thing w orth it. " Id. Wh en th e p o li c e fi nall y b ro ke through th e d oo r , Appellant rel e ased the co mplainant and said, " [rn ]y m o m w i ll b ai l m e o ut , yo u bitc h. And I will

c om e b a ck and kill y ou. " Id. She r e called bein g in pain an d fee l ing bl oo d gus hing fr o m
s om e wh e re o n her fac e . Id. at 1 2 9. After p o li c e o ffi ce rs t oo k App e llan t int o c us to dy , th e compl ai nan t w as es corte d by p o li ce t o T empl e U ni v ersity Ho s pi tal w h e re s h e re ce iv e d thr ee
s titch es in her bott o m lip. 

### Id. at 1 29-3 0 ; N.T. 1 0/23/15 at 6 5 -6 6. She al s o ha d ab rasi on s on h er
c hest , right hand , l e ft h an d, and n eck, al o n g with brui s in g and p ai n t o her ri g ht kn ee and n eck. N .T. I 0/23 / 15 at 66.7

ch ild b y viol atin g a duty of car e , p ro tec ti o n or s u pport ." 18 P a .C.S .A
. § 4 30 4(a )( l )
. c h i ld un der 18 y ear s of a ge . .. co mmit s an off e n s e 

### if he kn ow in gly e ndan ge rs th e wel fare o f the . c hildre n . U nd er th e s t atu te , "[ a] p are nt , guar di an or othe r p er s o n s u pe rvi s in g th e w e lfare o f a T hu s, A ppell ant ar g u es, h e co uld n o t h ave v i o l ate d an y du ty of c are , pr otec ti o n , or s upp o rt to the that s h owe d Ap p el lan t w a s a p are n t , g u ardi an , or per s on s up ervis in g the we lf are o f th e c hildre n . for end ange ri n g th e we l far e of a c hi l d , argu in g th at th e Co mm o n wealth d id not p rese n t ev id e n ce A pp e ll an t ' s firs t conte nti o n i s th at the ev iden ce w a s in suf fi cie n t t o su pp o rt his co n v i ctio n A
. The e v idenc e was sufficient to s upport a con v iction for endang e ring the w e lfare o f a child because Appellant owed a duty of care or protection 

### to the children. cert. den i e d

, 5 4 9 U
. S. 1 1 6 9 (20 0 7). Co mm on we al th a s th e v e r di ct winner
. Co mm o n we a lth v, Mitc h ell, 902 A.2d 4 30 , 4 44 (Pa
. 20 0 6), the su ffic i e n cy of th e e vid e n c e, all re as o n ab l e i nfe ren ces mu st be dr awn in favor of th e (Pa
. Sup e r . 1 9 9 4 ) (ci tin g Com mon we alth v . Pri ce, 6 1 0 A.2d 488 (P a.S uper . 19 92 )). In r ev iewin g ev id e n ce r ece i ve d must b e co nsid e r e d. Com mon we a lth v. W oods, 638 A. 2 d 1 013 , 101 5 the o ff e n se b eyo nd a reaso n able d o ubt. I d The en tir e tri al r eco rd must b e evalu ate d and all The t est i s wheth e r th e evide nce ad mitt e d at trial s upp orts th e jury ' s fi ndin g o f all th e e l e m e n ts o f l aw an d is s ubj e ct to p l e n ary rev i ew. Com m o n w e a l t h v. Hi tcho , 1 23 A.3 d 73 1 , 7 4 6 ( P a. 20 1 5). App e ll an t ' s conv i cti ons . A c h allen ge t o the sufficie n cy of th e evi d e n ce p rese nt s a qu e sti on o f Ea ch i ssue r ai sed o n appe al co n ce rn s the su ffi cienc y of the evi den ce supp o rtin g DISC U SSION wo uld b e pr o p erly d efe nd ed. I d. at 1 9 9. of go in g thro u gh th is " an d was n o lo nger afr aid to pur s u e th e c ase b ecau se she felt that she tim e he h a d b ee n v i o l e nt toward s h er. I d. at 13 8, 1 9 9. S h e ultim ate l y dec i de d th at she w as "s i c k - . - -: - : ~ ..· . · --.· -8 1 " D e c idi n g that adu lt s w h o shar e a r es id e n c e wi th a c h i ld n o t i n th e ir l egal c u s to d y ar e n o t re s p ons ibl e f o r th e · w e l far e o f th at c h i l d wo u ld u n d e rmine b o th th e l an g u a g e and ap p li cati on o f th e e n dan g eri n g s tatu te . U nder su c h a li mit e d re a di n g , s t ep p ar e n t s , gr an dp ar e n t s , adu lt s ibli n g s , adu l t r oo mm at e s , fi fe partne r s , and o th e r s c o u ldn o t b e p ro s e c u t ed fo r en d an geri n g th e w e l far e o f a c hil d. Our c ourt s s h o uld n ot and h ave n o t limit e d th e s c op e o f th e s tatu t e t o e x cl u d e th i s br oa d and di v e r se cate gory o f pe r sons . .. . B y s tati n g th at s u c h pe r sons ar e co nt e mp l ate d w ithi n th e s c op e o f th e s t atu te , we do n o t ho l d that all a dul ts re s i d in g wi th mi n o r c hildre n are a uto m at i c a lly c ri minally l iab l e un der this l aw , b u t rath e r th at, a s a m atte r of law, th ey are not o u t s id e o f th e s co pe o f the s t atu t e . In o r de r t o e s tab l is h th e s econ d e l e m e n t o f the c ri m e , th e pro s e c uti o n mu s t p rov e that the adu l t ha d a du ty o f care, pr o t e cti on, o r s up p ort of th at c h i ld w h i c h th e y v iolate d
. " Brown , 72 1 A
. 2 d at 11 0 7 -08 ( P a . S u pe r , 1998). c hild co n s i s te d o nl y o f p e ri o di c b aby s i tti n g , di ap er ch angi n g , an d p lay in g with the c h ild. I d. 72 1 A. 2 d at 1 108
. The C o urt uph e ld the co n v i c ti o n w h ere th e d efe nd an t' s re lati o n s hip wi th th e s uffi c i e n c y o f th e e v i den c e s u pporti n g a c o n v i c ti o n fo r the c hi l d e n dang erm en t st atu t e. B ro wn , c hild s o a s to i mp ose a duty t o a c t." ) )
. 1 I n B ro wn , the Co urt re v i ewe d a c h allen g e t o the i n c o n tr o l an d s u pe rv i s i on o f a c hild , th at per so n ha s as s ume d s u ch a st atu s re lati o nsh ip t o th e Co m mo n w e alth v . K

e llam, 7 1 9 A.2 d 792, 79 6 ( P a.S up er. 1 9 98 ) ( " [ \\T )h e ne v e r a p e r s o n i s p l a c e d 4 3 04 ( a)( l )
. Comm o n w e a l t h v . Bro wn , 72 1 A
. 2 d 11 05, 1 1 0 7

- 08 ( P a . S upe r. 1 9 98 ) ( citin g c h i ld an d v i o late s a du ty of care , p ro tec ti o n , o r s upp o rt i s wi thi n the s co pe o f 1 8 P a .C
. S
. A. 

### § T h e Sup eri o r Co urt p rev io u s l y h e ld that an a dul t w h o vo l u nt aril y r es id e s w ith a min o r v . M ack, 3 5 9 A .2 d 770 , 7 72 (P a. 1 9 7 6) ). e ffe ctu at e i t s b ro a d purp ose o f s h e l te rin g c hi l dre n fr o m h arm . " I d. at 8 1 8 (ci tin g Co m mo n w e a lt h 79 6 , 8 2 4 (Pa
. 2 0 15 )
. Furtherm o re , th e statu te i s " p ro te ctiv e i n natur e, an d mus t be con s tru e d t o " e nc o mp a s s es all fo rm s o f s up ervi sio n o f a ch i ld' s wel fare . " Com m on w ealth v . L y nn , 1 14 A. 3 d s u pe rvisi o n is n ot li mited to cert ai n fo rm s , s u c h a s di re ct o r a c tual s up erv i s i o n , b ut in s t e ad th at p rov id es care , e duc ati o n , tr aini ng or co n tr o l o f a c hi ld. " 1 8 P a.C
. S
. A
. § 4 3 04 ( a ) (3). Thi s d efi n e s " p e r s o n s up erv i s in g th e welfare of a c hild " a s " a p er so n oth e r than a par e n t or gu ar di an w o uld n eed t o co nclude th at h e w as a "pe r so n s up erv isin g the w e l far e of a c hild
. " T h e s t atu t e c h i ldre n . Thu s, i n ord e r t o c on v i ct hi m o f end an gering the w e l f ar e o f a c hild , th e fi nd er o f fa ct Th er e i s n o e v iden c e th at Ap pe ll an t w as ei the r a p are n t o r l e g al gu ar di an o f an y o f the

### 9

thr eat o f ph ys i c al h arm. " I d. In s t ea d , th e ac c u sed mu st b e aw ar e that hi s v i o lati o n o f hi s duty of Wallace, 81 7 A
. 2 d 4 8 5 , 491 ( P a. S upe r. 2 00 2). N or do es it r equir e that a child b e in "imminen t lac ks meri t. Th e statu t e d o es n ot require a ctu al ph ys ic al injury t o a child. Co mm o nw ea lth v. w as e ndan g er ed duri ng th e in c iden t between h i m sel f an d th e complai nant. Th is ar gum e nt , to o , e ndan g erin g the welf

are of a c hild b e caus e th e e v iden ce di d n o t e s tabli s h that an y c hi l d 's w el fare App e llan t n ext argue s that the e vid en ce was in suffic i e n t t o s upp o rt a c on v i c tio n fo r B. The evidence wa s sufficient to s upport a conviction for endangering the welfare of a child because the welfare of the children was endangered during the incident between Appellant and the complainant
. s up e rv i s in g th e welfare of a child. " 18 P a .C.S. A. § 4304 ( a) ( l ). A .2d at 1 1 08. Th us , the evi dence w as su f fici e nt for the jury to fin d that Appellant w as a " p er so n w ell b e yond th at of the b aby s i ttin g, diap e r c h an gin g, and pl ayi n g as d esc rib e d in Br o wn. 72) sc h oo l w ork. Id. at 139 -40
. App e llan t's in t era c tio n w ith the co mp lainan t 's c hildr e n cl e arly w en t App e llant h e lp e d h e r with h e r c hildre n , includ i n g coo kin g for th e m and h e lpin g the m wi th their p e riodi c all y b etw e e n April 2013 and M arc h 3 0 , 2 0 1 4. 

### I d. at 110- 1 1 , 14 0. Sh e al so s tate d that App e llant w as h e r b o yfri e nd at th e ti me o f th e i n c i de nt , and that h e stay ed wi th he r and h e r s on s the b oy s t o s ch oo l and c oo kin g dinn e r. 

### I d. at 89 -90
. Li ke wi s e , th e c omplain ant tes tifi e d th at 90
. Zac karie al so te sti fied that App e llan t helped h is m other aro und th e h ou se, includin g dri v ing m o nth s pri o r to Marc h 30, 2014 , an d that he co n s id e red App e llant a fri e n d. N.T. 10/22/15 at 8 8 - Appell ant had b ee n li v in g at th e apartm e n t w i th th e m fo r so m ew h e re b etwee n s i x and nin e cl os e , i f n o t close r , t o that de scrib e d in Brown
. Zack ari e , th e co mpl ain ant ' s so n , testi fie d th at 

### In the pr ese n t c as e, Ap p e llant 's re lati ons hip w i th th e co mpl ainant's c hildre n w a s equall y su perv i s in g th e w e lfar e o f a child." 1 8 P a .C.S .A. § 43 04 ( a )( l )
. Thus , this level o f interacti o n with the child w as suffici e nt t o deem the defendant a " p e r so n10

Z a c kari e testi fi ed t o fe elin g "con fu se d " and " trau mati z ed " b y the i nci d e nt , es p eci all y a ft e r s e e in g b e droo m s . 

### I

d at 1 2 4 -25 , 190- 9 1. Alth o u g h n o ne o f th e c hildre n wer e phy si c all y in jure d , h e cal l e d her c hil dr en " m otherfu cker s " and thre aten e d 

### to kill th e m if th e y di d n ot return to th e ir th e c hildre n n o t t o op e n the d oo r. N
. T. 10/22/15 at 5 1 , 77- 78, 81, 12 2

- 23 , 1 25 , 2 09. In additi o n , si tuati on w a s res olv ed , s il e ncin g th e co mplain an t' s scre am s for h e lp b y b e ating h e r , and te l lin g barri c adin g the d oo r wi th o bj ects, s p e aking in a fe minine vo i ce t o co nv i nc e the p o li ce th at th e to the co mpl ai nan t ' s phon e call , Ap p ellant m a d e a d eli be rate ef fort t o ke ep th e p o li ce o u t by ap artment. 

### Id at 1 2 4- 27; N. T. 10/23 / 1 5 at 6 5. Furth e rm o r e , w h e n the p o li ce arri v ed in res ponse ph ys i c all y and v erb all y ab u s in g th e i r m o th e r , Appell an t cre ate d a dan ge rou s envi ro nmen t in the their ph y sical o r p s ych o lo g ical w elfare. By s tayin g at the apartmen t as a fugitiv e , as well as Secon d , Appellant was a w are th at h e pla ce d th e children in a si tuati o n that thre ate ned sc h oo l , it i s implau s ibl e that h e did not kno w o f thi s duty
. th e c hildre n . Given th at he liv e d at their apartm e n t , prepare d th e ir me als , an d dr ov e them t o e ndan g ere d th e w e lfare of the c hildre n. F irs t , App e ll an t was aware that he had a duty to prot ect Appl y ing th ese thre e el e ments t o the pre se nt cas e, it i s clear that App e llant kn o win g l y 109 8, 1 0 99 -1 10 0 ( Pa. S up e r . 2 004) (c itin g Wa lla c e, 81 7 A .2 d at 490

- 91 ). re a so nabl y b e exp e cte d to prot ec t th e child's welfare. " Comm o nw ea lth v . R e tko fsky, 86 0 A. 2d ( 3 ) has either f

ai le d to ac t or h as t aken a ctio n s "so lam e o r m e a g er that s u c h acti o ns cann ot the c h i ld i s in c irc um s tan ces th at thr eate n th e c hild ' s p h y si c al or ps yc h o l o gi c al w ellb e in g; and e lem e nt o f th e s tatute: the ac cu s ed (l ) i s a war e of his duty t o p ro te c t th e chil d ; ( 2 ) is aware th at T h e Superi o r C o urt has es tablish e d three elements that mu st be pre se nt t o p rov e thi s - we lf ar e . I d. at 492
. c ar e or prote ction t o th e child i s pra cticall y ce rtain to r es ul t in the endan g erment o f th e chi l d ' s11

al s o t o l d h er s he co ul d n ot l e ave, fo llo w in g her aro un d th e ap artm e nt and ho l din g h er ke ys an d c o mp lain ant agai n st h er w ill , thr eate n e d her , and s tru c k h e r w hile s he r es i ste d hi s a ctio n s. H e S i m i lar t o th efac t s d e s c rib e d in Moody, A pp e llan t i n the p res e nt c ase d et ain ed th e i nferred th at [th e v ic tim] wa s be in g re strain e d
. . .. " 

### Id. T h e S up e ri o r Court h e l d th at b a s ed u p o n th i s e vi d en ce , th e tri al court " co u l d h ave r easonab ly he r w ill , w as thr eate n e d b y [th e d efe n dan t] , struck b y him , an d
. . . forci bl y res i s te d his acti o n s ." af fi rm ed a c o nvi c tion fo r unla w ful restr ai nt whe re th e vi c ti m " wa s fo r c ibly det ai ned
. .. ag ain s t In Co m m on w eal t

h v. Moo d

y, 44 1 A.2d 3 7 1 , 37 4 ( P a. S up er. 1 982 ) , the Superio r Co u rt the ap artmen t o r th at sh e was pla c ed i n dan g e r o f s u ffe rin g se ri o u s b o dil y inj ury . ev iden ce did n o t s uffi c i e ntl y establi s h that th e c o mpl ai n ant w as d ep ri ve d of her fre e d o m to l eave Common we a lt

h v . Schilling, 4 3 1 A. 2 d 1 0 88 , 10 91

- 92 ( P a . S up er. 1981)
. Appellan t ar gu e s th at th e §2 9 02( a )(l )
. A defe n dant mu s t " pu t ano the r in a c tual d an g er o f s eri o u s b o d i l y i nj ury ." " unl awfully i n c irc um st an ces ex p os in g [ h e r] to ri s k of s eri o u s b o dil y in j ury." 18 Pa
. C. S .A
. The unla wf

ul r es tr ain t st atu te requir es th at a p e rs on kn o win g ly re str ain an o th er C. The e v id e nc e was s ufficient to s upport a conviction for unlawful restr aint because the complainant was deprived of her freedom 

### to leave the apartment and was exposed 

### to the risk of serious bodily injury
. th e apartmen t , Ap p ell an t ex ac e rbat ed th e po te ntial d an ger of th e situati o n. N.T. 10/22/ 15 at 1 2 7. e m otio n al thre at to the c hil dren an d their m o ther
. And b y makin g ef fort s t o kee p the p o li c e o u t of we l fare. In stea d, he c r e ated a d anger o u s s itu ation in th e apartme n t and was a ph ys ic al and A s to the third elem e nt , App e ll ant did n ot t ake an y actio n s t o p ro te ct the c hildre n ' s A.2d at 1 0 99

- 110 0
. that he was j eo par di z in g th e ch i ldre n ' s p h y s i cal an d p sy ch o lo g ical w ellb e in g . R e tkofsky, 860 his moth e r bl ee din g and h yste ri c al
. 

### I d. at 85. Ac co rdin g l y , it i s cle ar th at A p pell an t under st oo d12 2 A lth o u g h A pp e ll an t m ay ar gu e that h e co ul d n o t h ave detai n ed th e c omplain ant i n h er ow n ap artme n t, th e Superi or C ou rt previ o usly s truck do wn a s imil ar ar gu me n t in In re M.G ., 91 6 A
. 2 d 1179 , 1 1 82 ( Pa
. S up er , 2007 )
. In that ca s e , the Co urt rejec te d the d e f e n d ant 's ar g ume n t that b ecau s e th e i n c i de n t o cc u rre d in th e v i ctim ' s o wn be dro om, he cou ld n ot b e conv i cte d o f unl aw fu l restrai n t. I d "Wh eth e r i n h er ow n h o m e o r e l s ew h e re , [th e de fend an t] r e s traine d ( the vic tim] an d ke p t he r i n an area wh er e s h e did no t wi s h t o re m ai n . " Id. (c i tin g Comm o nwealth v , Prin ce , 719 A.2d 1 086 , 1 08 9 (Pa
. Su p e r , 1 9 98) ( find i n g th at th e e vi d e n ce s upp o rt e d un l awful re strain t c on v i ction w h ere th e vi c ti m wa s attacke d in h er o wn h o m e and wh er e she s tay ed n e ar th e de fe n dant all nigh t o u t o f fear fo r h er saf e ty))
. n os e , s h o ving a w as h clo th in h e r m o uth. i an d c h o kin g her
. I d at 11 6-17 , 122

- 23 , 126

- 27. 2 s i len ce he r scr eam s b y h ol ding a pill o w ov er h e r fa ce, h o ldin g h is hand s o v e r h er mo u th an d lac erati o ns o n h er lip and brui s in g o n h er n e c k. He sp at in her fac e , smac ke d h er , and tried t o so ns . I d at 116-1 7, 1 2 4 -2 5, 12 7 19 0

- 9 1
. H e s tru c k and a s s ault ed h er in vario u s w ays, c au s in g th e ri sk o f s e rio u s bo di ly injury. H e t o ld h e r multipl e tim e s that h e wa s go in g t o ki ll h er and h e r The ev i de n ce al so suffic ien tl y d e m o n s tr ate d th at Appell ant e x p ose d the compl ainan t t o fre ed o m to l e av e the ap artme n t. th e se circ um st an ces, App e ll ant c learl y r es trai n e d th e co mpl ai nan t an d depri v ed h e r o f h e r and t o l d the co mpl ainan t's so n s n o t t o rem o ve an ythin g o r o p e n the d oo r. I d. at 82 -83
. U nd e r p h o ne . N
. T. 1 0/22/ 1 5 at 1 1 8 , 1 2 0. Furth e rmo r e, wh e n th e p o l ice arri v ed , h e b arri c aded the d oor ... -,', ~ '13 

# f)~ 7 DIANA L. A N HALT , J. DATE : JUL Y 2 0 , 2 016 BY THE CO U RT: affirme d. e v i d e n ce to fi nd Ap p e llan t gu il ty o f all o ff e n ses . A ccor din g l y , th e tri al c ourt 's d ecis io n s h o u l d b e A fte r re vi ew o f th e ap p lic able s t atu te s, t estim o n y , and case l a w , the r e is su ffici ent CONCL U SION I

.