Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

State v. Rundle

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
500 N.W.2d 916 (1993)


Facts

K.R., the three-and-a half-year-old daughter of Pamela Rundle and Kurt Rundle (defendant), was admitted to the hospital in a comatose state and covered in bruises. K.R. was blind and had possible brain damage as a result of physical abuse at the hands of Pamela. The injuries stemmed from various incidents in which Pamela threw, slapped, and kicked K.R. Pamela was charged with and convicted of numerous counts of child abuse, while Kurt was charged with intentionally causing a child bodily harm and recklessly causing a child great bodily harm. Kurt’s charges were based on a theory of aiding and abetting child abuse in violation of § 948.03(2)(b) and § 948.03(3)(a) of Wisconsin law. These sections required a guilty defendant to: (1) engage in conduct that aids another person in committing a crime and (2) have a conscious desire or intent to supply such aid. At trial, the evidence established that Kurt was present during the abuse, but various witnesses testified that Kurt never physically abused K.R. himself and had a loving relationship with K.R. However, the witnesses also testified that Kurt did not act to prevent Pamela from abusing K.R. Kurt was convicted of aiding and abetting Pamela’s child abuse. The court of appeals reversed Kurt’s convictions, citing insufficient evidence that Kurt had aided and abetted the abuse. The court of appeals acknowledged that Kurt could have been properly convicted under § 948.03(4), which criminalizes a failure to prevent child abuse, but Kurt was not being prosecuted under that section. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted the state’s petition for review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Abrahamson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Steinmetz, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.