Title: Commonwealth v. Dragotta
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12186
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: March 21, 2017

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12186 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  HEATHER DRAGOTTA. 
 
 
 
Essex.     December 6, 2016. - March 21, 2017. 
 
Present (Sitting at Lawrence):  Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, 
Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.1 
 
 
Assault and Battery.  Wanton or Reckless Conduct.  Child Abuse. 
 
 
 
 
Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on October 1, 2010. 
 
 
The cases were heard by Richard E. Welch, III, J. 
 
 
After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial 
Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. 
 
 
 
Patrick Levin, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for 
the defendant. 
 
Marcia H. Slingerland, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
 
 
BUDD, J.  After a jury-waived trial, Heather Dragotta was 
convicted on one indictment charging her with wantonly or 
recklessly permitting another person to commit an assault and 
                     
 
1 Justice Botsford participated in the deliberation on this 
case prior to her retirement. 
2 
 
 
battery that resulted in bodily injury to her infant daughter 
(victim).2  G. L. c. 265, § 13J.  The injury, an interhemispheric 
subdural hematoma, that is, bleeding between the hemispheres of 
the victim's brain, was recklessly inflicted by Dragotta's boy 
friend, Steven Amos, after Dragotta left the victim in his sole 
care while she took a shower.3  The Appeals Court affirmed 
Dragotta's conviction, and we granted her application for 
further appellate review.  Commonwealth v. Dragotta, 89 Mass. 
App. Ct. 119, S.C., 475 Mass. 1102 (2016).  Because we conclude 
that the evidence was insufficient to establish that her conduct 
was wanton or reckless, we reverse the conviction. 
 
Background.  Much of the evidence presented at trial was 
directed to explaining the victim's injuries and their cause.  
Now, however, we are primarily concerned with Dragotta's state 
of mind when she left the victim in Amos's care to take a 
shower.  Viewing the evidence at trial in the light most 
favorable to the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 
                     
 
2 Dragotta was acquitted on two further indictments charging 
the same offense. 
 
 
3 Steven Amos was convicted on three indictments charging 
assault and battery on a child, causing bodily injury, for 
inflicting the hematoma and, in separate incidents, fractures to 
the victim's ribs and arm.  His convictions were affirmed by the 
Appeals Court, and we denied his application for further 
appellate review.  Commonwealth v. Dragotta, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 
119, S.C., 475 Mass. 1103 (2016).  Amos's convictions are not 
before us. 
3 
 
 
Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979), the trial judge, as fact finder, 
reasonably could have found the following facts. 
 
The victim, who was Dragotta's first child, was born on 
April 27, 2010.  Amos was not the victim's father, but he 
participated actively in her care and acted as her father in all 
respects.4  After the birth, Dragotta and Amos temporarily stayed 
with Dragotta's parents in Weare, New Hampshire, so that the 
victim's grandmother could help with the baby.  Also living in 
the Weare house were Dragotta's brother and his girl friend, as 
well as two of Dragotta's sisters.  Dragotta, Amos, and the 
victim stayed in an upstairs bedroom in the Weare house for the 
first three weeks of the victim's life.  Dragotta was the 
victim's primary caregiver during this time, with the 
grandmother taking care of her for a few hours each night to 
allow Dragotta and Amos to rest.  For the first week of the 
victim's life, Amos spent almost all his time with Dragotta and 
the victim.  He thereafter returned to work, but when he 
returned to the Weare house each evening, he again spent his 
time with Dragotta and the baby. 
 
Two days after the victim was born, Dragotta took her to a 
pediatrician for a well-baby check.  According to the 
                     
 
4 Indeed, both the trial prosecutor and an investigator from 
the Department of Children and Families (department) referred to 
Dragotta and Amos as the victim's "parents." 
4 
 
 
pediatrician, the victim was healthy at that time and he had no 
concerns about Dragotta's conduct. 
 
At some point in the first two weeks of the victim's life, 
the grandmother noticed an unusual intermittent cracking sound 
in the victim's upper back.  She testified that the sound did 
not appear to be associated with any particular movement and 
that it did not appear to be causing any pain.  Dragotta 
telephoned the pediatrician's office to ask about it, and a 
nurse there told her there was no cause for concern so long as 
it was not bothering the victim. 
 
Over the next two weeks, the victim became more fussy.  
Both the grandmother and Dragotta attributed this to gas-related 
discomfort, which is common in breastfed infants.  Dragotta and 
Amos gave the victim over-the-counter medications in an effort 
to relieve her symptoms, without success.  On May 11, 2010, at 
another well-baby appointment with the pediatrician, Dragotta 
mentioned her concern about the gas-related symptoms.  The 
pediatrician showed Dragotta a "bicycle" technique to help 
relieve the symptoms:  laying the victim down on her back and 
then gently grasping her legs and rotating them, either 
alternately or together.  The doctor explained that this can 
alleviate the baby's discomfort and the baby might pass gas or 
stool as a result.  At this visit, the pediatrician again had no 
concerns about the victim's health or Dragotta's conduct. 
5 
 
 
 
After the appointment, Dragotta showed the bicycle 
technique to Amos, and each of them used this technique in an 
effort to relieve the victim's discomfort.  At some point, Amos 
concluded that the bicycle technique did not work, but that the 
victim's symptoms could be alleviated by pushing her legs toward 
her stomach and pushing them down into her stomach to relieve 
gas or stool.  Dragotta saw Amos using this technique after the 
checkup, and she knew that the victim occasionally cried when he 
did so. 
 
On May 18, 2010, Dragotta and Amos moved to Amos's 
apartment in North Andover, about an hour's drive from the Weare 
house.  While they were living there, the victim was with 
Dragotta about ninety per cent of the time.  Amos cared for the 
baby by himself at times when Dragotta was showering, 
exercising, or doing housework, as well as in the mornings 
before leaving for work so Dragotta could sleep.  Often, Amos 
would take the victim into another room to change her diaper and 
would consistently use his gas-relieving technique whenever 
doing so. 
 
Shortly after they moved to Massachusetts, Dragotta saw 
Amos use his technique in a manner that caused the victim to 
make a noise that she did not like.  On that occasion, Dragotta 
thought Amos might be pushing too hard and that it might be too 
much for her.  Dragotta immediately told Amos to stop using that 
6 
 
 
technique, and she believed he complied.  However, Amos 
continued using the technique until sometime the following week.  
As discussed more fully below, Amos's use of this technique 
caused the victim to sustain multiple rib fractures. 
 
One day, during the week of May 24, Dragotta left the 
victim in Amos's care while she took a shower.  As Amos would 
later tell investigators, he "had put some music on, and . . . 
he was acting like [the victim] was a guitar, and . . . he was 
dancing and spinning around the living room and dipping her up 
and down, at one point dipping her forward, [and] her head came 
crashing down on his collarbone."  The victim cried for "a 
couple of minutes" after hitting her head.  The following day, 
Dragotta noticed a bruise near the victim's ear and some redness 
in her left eye.  Amos told her what had happened, and Dragotta 
told him to be more careful with the baby.  She then telephoned 
the pediatrician's office and spoke with a nurse, who told her 
to watch the redness in the victim's eye and to call again if it 
became any worse.  The Commonwealth contended, and the judge 
apparently found, that this "guitar" incident caused the victim 
to sustain a subdural hematoma.  Dragotta's conviction arose 
from this incident. 
 
However, the victim's injuries were not discovered until 
June 3 and 4, 2010.  Dragotta and the victim spent the afternoon 
of June 3 visiting friends and family in New Hampshire.  For a 
7 
 
 
time, Dragotta left the victim in the care of one of her sisters 
at the Weare house while she gathered some belongings.  When 
they returned to the North Andover apartment that evening, Amos 
held the victim on the living room sofa while Dragotta was in 
the kitchen.  At one point, Amos moved the victim's arm, and she 
"let out [an] awful cry," causing Dragotta to think something 
was wrong with her arm.  Dragotta and Amos took the victim to 
the emergency room at Lawrence General Hospital, arriving at 
7:45 P.M. that evening. 
 
At that hospital, the victim's arm was X-rayed, revealing a 
fracture of the right radius.  She then underwent a full 
skeletal survey, that is, X-rays of every part of her body.  
That skeletal survey revealed no other fractures.  A physical 
examination of the victim likewise revealed no other injuries. 
 
The victim was transferred to Boston Children's Hospital 
for further investigation as to the cause of the arm fracture.  
Dr. Celeste Wilson, the medical director of the hospital's child 
protection program, examined the victim during the morning of 
June 4.  She observed a red spot in the victim's left eye, but 
did not consider it to be a cause for concern.  Dr. Wilson also 
saw no marks on the victim's skin.  Other than the right arm 
fracture, she did not see anything out of the ordinary in her 
examination of the victim.  She recommended that a second 
8 
 
 
skeletal survey be performed, along with scans of the victim's 
head. 
 
Dr. Paul Kleinman, a radiologist, reviewed the new skeletal 
survey and found several fractures to the posterior, anterior, 
and lateral portions of the victim's ribs.5  He opined that a 
likely mechanism for all of these fractures was a compression of 
the rib cage.  Based on the signs of healing visible in the 
skeletal survey, Dr. Kleinman opined that the lateral fractures 
were at least seven days old and that the posterior fractures 
were between ten days and six weeks old.  He could not form an 
opinion as to the age of the anterior fractures. 
 
In addition, Dr. Kleinman found evidence of injuries to the 
victim's legs.  He opined that the injuries occurred from 
"twisting and pulling forces."  Both he and Dr. Wilson testified 
that the force required to cause such injuries was more than 
would be expected from routine handling by a caretaker.  Dr. 
Wilson also stated that the leg injuries could be caused by the 
"bicycle" maneuver if it was performed improperly. 
 
As to the fracture to the victim's right radius, Dr. 
Kleinman testified that it showed no sign of healing and was 
                     
 
5 The lateral fractures formed the basis for some of the 
indictments against Dragotta and Amos.  The anterior and 
posterior rib fractures were not mentioned in any of the 
indictments. 
9 
 
 
therefore a recent injury.  He could not offer an opinion as to 
its likely cause. 
 
Dr. Wilson examined the scans of the victim's head and 
concluded that there was a small subdural hematoma between the 
hemispheres of the victim's brain.  She testified that a 
subdural hematoma could have numerous possible causes, but that 
the most likely cause was an acceleration-deceleration motion, 
which could result from shaking or from a sudden impact of the 
head against a surface.6  Both Dr. Wilson and Dr. Kleinman 
testified to their opinions that the victim's injuries were the 
result of inflicted trauma.  While Dr. Wilson expressed doubt 
that the hematoma could have been caused by the victim's head 
striking Amos's collarbone during the "guitar" incident, the 
record nonetheless is sufficient to support a finding that this 
was the cause. 
 
The victim's injuries resulted in a report to the 
Department of Children and Families (department) pursuant to 
G. L. c. 119, § 51A.  Amy Silverio, a department investigator, 
met separately with Dragotta and Amos during the afternoon of 
June 4 at the department's Lawrence office.  North Andover 
police Detective Daniel Cronin also participated.  Dragotta, who 
was upset and tearful at times, told Silverio about the victim's 
                     
 
6 There was, however, no evidence of any fractures to the 
victim's skull or injury to her neck, and the hematoma was not 
large enough to put pressure on her brain. 
10 
 
 
birth, her health up to that point, and about the events of June 
3.  Dragotta also described the bicycle technique that the 
pediatrician had taught her for relieving gas.  This maneuver 
did not appear unusual to Silverio.  When questioned as to how 
the victim might have sustained her injuries, Dragotta became 
tearful and said that she believed Amos's pushing technique, 
which she described for the investigators, could have broken the 
victim's ribs.  She also told them that the victim would cry 
when Amos pushed, and that at one point, after the victim had 
made a sound Dragotta did not like, she told him not to use that 
technique anymore.  As to the injuries to the victim's arm and 
head, Dragotta had no explanation, other than a suspicion that 
something might have happened while her sister was watching the 
baby.  Silverio informed Dragotta that, due to the inflicted 
injuries, a care and protection petition would be filed on 
behalf of the victim. 
 
After Dragotta's interview was finished, she left the room 
visibly upset, and Amos walked in.  He immediately asked whether 
Dragotta would be allowed to keep the victim if he told them 
that he was the one who hurt her.  Cronin told him not to lie to 
protect anyone, but to say only what had happened.  Amos stated 
that he was positive that he had broken the victim's ribs using 
his gas-relieving technique.  He described his technique and 
told Silverio and Cronin that he used it to relieve the victim's 
11 
 
 
discomfort and to allow Dragotta to rest, as she was "stressed 
paper thin."  He also stated that he felt he was pushing too 
hard and hurting the victim.  About a week to ten days before 
the interview, Amos had become concerned that he was damaging 
the victim's internal organs, and he stopped using his 
technique.  It appeared to Silverio from the timelines provided 
by Dragotta and Amos that that Amos had continued using his 
technique after Dragotta had told him to stop. 
 
When he was asked what might have caused the bleeding in 
the victim 's brain, he described the "guitar" incident.  He 
also demonstrated the "guitar" dancing for Silverio and Cronin.  
This did not appear to them to be an appropriate way to handle 
the victim, a five-week old infant who could not yet hold her 
head up.  As to the victim's broken arm, Amos speculated that 
this might have happened while Dragotta was taking the victim 
out of her car seat, or earlier while the victim was with the 
sister, although he did not believe either of them would hurt 
the victim intentionally.  His only other suggestion was that he 
might have grabbed her arm too tightly when she started to slide 
off his stomach while they were on the sofa. 
 
The following Monday, Silverio and Cronin went to the North 
Andover apartment and spoke further with Dragotta about the 
victim's injuries.  The apartment appeared to Silverio to be an 
appropriate environment for a small child.  In the course of her 
12 
 
 
investigation, Silverio spoke with every person who had had 
contact with the victim in the first six weeks of her life and 
found no one who had any concerns about the way either Dragotta 
or Amos treated her.  By the time of trial, according to the 
victim's father's testimony, the victim was a healthy, active 
three-year old child. 
 
Discussion.  At issue is whether the Commonwealth proved 
that Dragotta acted wantonly or recklessly when she left the 
victim in Amos's sole care while she took a shower on the 
occasion of the "guitar" incident.  "Proof of recklessness 
requires 'more than a mistake of judgment or even gross 
negligence,' Commonwealth v. Michaud, 389 Mass. 491, 499 (1983), 
and has been defined as 'intentional conduct . . . involv[ing] a 
high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to 
another.'  Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383, 399 (1944)."  
Commonwealth v. Pugh, 462 Mass. 482, 496 (2012).  "To constitute 
wanton or reckless conduct, 'the risk . . . must be known or 
reasonably apparent, and the harm must be a probable consequence 
of the defendant's election to run that risk or of [her] failure 
reasonably to recognize it.'"  Commonwealth v. Levesque, 436 
Mass. 443, 452 (2002), quoting Sandler v. Commonwealth, 419 
Mass. 334, 336 (1995).  Dragotta's conviction can stand only if 
she realized, or if an ordinary person in her circumstances 
reasonably would have realized, the gravity of the danger to the 
13 
 
 
victim.  See Pugh, 462 Mass. at 496-497.  Put another way, the 
issue is whether Dragotta either knew or reasonably should have 
known that Amos was so manifestly unfit to care for an infant 
that the victim was in grave danger if she were left in his sole 
care even briefly. 
 
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the 
Commonwealth, at the time of the guitar incident, the week of 
May 24, 2010, Dragotta knew that Amos had not been using the 
gentle "bicycle" technique to relieve the victim's gas symptoms, 
but the more forceful pushing technique.  The trial judge, as 
fact finder, rationally could have found that she also saw him, 
on one occasion, use this technique forcefully enough to cause 
pain and distress.  On that occasion, Dragotta told Amos to stop 
using that technique, and she believed he complied.  There is no 
evidence, however, that Dragotta or anyone else suspected that 
Amos's technique caused injury until June 4, when the rib 
fractures were discovered.  In particular, there is no evidence 
of bruising connected with the rib fractures,7 nor is there 
                     
 
7 Dr. Celeste Wilson testified that, during her examination 
of the victim, she was informed that the victim had had a bruise 
on her rib about one and one-half weeks previously.  The record 
does not reveal the size and shape of the bruise or its precise 
location.  It also appears that Dr. Wilson attached no 
significance to that bruise, even after learning of the victim's 
rib fractures, other than to say that bruising is not common in 
a five-week old infant.  There is thus no basis on this record 
to find that the bruise was related to the rib fractures or that 
14 
 
 
evidence that the victim was behaving as though she was in acute 
pain, so as to cause a reasonable person to be concerned that 
she had an undiscovered injury.  Cf. Commonwealth v. Garcia, 47 
Mass. App. Ct. 419, 422-423 (1999) (upholding conviction under 
§ 13J where infant had bruises and mother had noticed pain, but 
her explanations were implausible).  Although Dr. Wilson 
testified that she would expect an infant with rib fractures to 
cry, she consistently qualified that testimony by stating that 
babies cry for many reasons and that it is difficult for a 
parent to know why a baby is crying at any given time.  There is 
no evidence that the victim cried in any way that was out of the 
ordinary for an infant at any time before the "guitar" incident, 
apart from the sound the victim made the last time Dragotta saw 
Amos performing his modified bicycle maneuver.  As for that, the 
evidence was simply that the victim made a noise that Dragotta 
did not like, not that she was crying inconsolably or that she 
continued to make that noise even after Amos stopped pushing.  
Indeed, the doctors at Lawrence General Hospital did not detect 
the rib fractures when they examined the victim and performed 
the first skeletal survey, nor did Dr. Wilson observe anything 
out of the ordinary, apart from the broken arm, in her 
examination of the victim at Boston Children's Hospital.  It was 
                                                                  
it should have caused Dragotta to suspect that the victim had a 
serious injury inflicted by Amos. 
15 
 
 
not until the second skeletal survey was performed that the rib 
fractures were discovered.  Where the victim presented no 
outward sign of injury that was detectable to medical 
professionals, we do not see how Dragotta could have suspected 
injury. 
 
The Commonwealth argues that Dragotta's later statement to 
the investigators that Amos's technique could have caused the 
rib fractures proves that she was aware of this possibility 
before the fractures were discovered.  We disagree.  To draw 
that conclusion, one would have to find that Dragotta suspected 
that the victim's ribs might have been injured and did not seek 
medical attention for that injury, although she had sought 
medical advice for the benign cracking sound in the victim's 
back, had kept the victim's routine pediatric appointments, and 
later sought medical attention for the arm injury.8  In our view, 
the only rational inference from Dragotta's statement at the 
interview is that, upon learning that the victim's ribs were 
fractured and being asked what might have caused this, she made 
the connection to Amos's technique.  On all the evidence, at the 
time she left the victim with Amos, there was no reason for 
Dragotta to suspect that his technique had caused not only pain, 
but also substantial injuries. 
                     
 
8 In this regard, we note that the judge acquitted Dragotta 
of recklessly permitting Amos to inflict the rib injuries. 
16 
 
 
 
Moreover, although Amos was certainly an inexperienced and 
flawed caretaker, it is undisputed that he did not intentionally 
hurt the victim, and Dragotta had no reason to believe that he 
would.  There was no risk that he would seize the opportunity to 
harm the victim if left alone with her for even a short time.  
To be sure, we do not hold that a defendant cannot be convicted 
of recklessly permitting assault and battery to a child merely 
because the principal assailant acted recklessly rather than 
intentionally or merely because the child was in the assailant's 
care for only a short time.  However, Amos's intentions toward 
the victim and the length of time he would be alone with her are 
relevant to the gravity of the risk that Dragotta placed her in 
by leaving her in his sole care. 
 
Finally, we find it difficult to imagine what more a 
reasonable person in Dragotta's position should have done.  See 
Pugh, 462 Mass. at 497, citing Welansky, 316 Mass. at 398-399 
("the inquiry as to reasonable conduct is central to whether the 
defendant acted recklessly from an objective perspective").  
When she saw that Amos's technique caused pain and distress to 
the victim, she put a stop to it, and she believed he stopped 
using his technique.  Although there might have been other 
actions she could have taken -- ending the relationship and 
moving out, or arranging for another adult to be present with 
Amos and the victim while she showered -- we cannot say that any 
17 
 
 
reasonable person would have been obligated to take these steps, 
given the facts known to Dragotta at that time. 
 
In sum, the evidence at trial showed at most that 
Dragotta's decision briefly to leave the victim alone with Amos 
was an error in judgment.  The evidence was not sufficient as a 
matter of law to find that her conduct involved a high degree of 
likelihood that substantial harm would result.  Therefore, her 
conviction of wantonly or recklessly permitting an assault and 
battery on the victim cannot be sustained. 
 
Conclusion.  The judgment is reversed, the finding is set 
aside, and judgment shall enter for the defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.