Commonwealth v. Micheline Sanon.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-1158

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

MICHELINE SANON.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a jury-waived trial in the District Court, the

defendant, Micheline Sanon, was found guilty on three counts of

reckless endangerment of a child.1 G. L. c. 265, § 13L. On

appeal, Sanon challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting these convictions. Because we agree that the

evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial was insufficient

to prove that Sanon's conduct put her children at risk of

"serious bodily harm" as defined in G. L. c. 265, we reverse the

convictions.

1Sanon was also charged with one count of assault and
battery, G. L. c. 265, § 13A (a), and one count assault and
battery with a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15A (b). These
charges were dismissed on the trial date at the request of the
Commonwealth, however, and they are not at issue in this appeal.
Facts. We recite the relevant facts in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 487

Mass. 448, 450 (2021). In 2021, Sanon lived with her mother,

her partner, her adult son, and her three minor children (ages

ten, nine, and seven) in a home in East Bridgewater. Sanon's

mother, who spoke French, but not English, supervised the minor

children when Sanon was not home. The oldest of Sanon's minor

children had a cell phone and previously told Sanon's neighbor

that "she was in charge all the time" because her grandmother

did not speak English. The neighbor testified, however, that he

had never known Sanon's mother to be absent while Sanon was not

home.

On May 15, 2021, East Bridgewater police officers responded

to Sanon's home after the neighbor reported hearing Sanon's

children screaming, both inside and outside the home. At trial,

the Commonwealth presented evidence to show that Sanon's home

was unhygienic, and that certain conditions in the home and

backyard were unsafe.2 For example, the living room floor was

sticky and there were bags of clothing and trash, flies, and a

strong odor in the room. In the kitchen, the officers noted

maggots and more flies; a sink overflowing with dirty dishes;

and moldy, inedible food. In both a front room and a child's

2 At trial, the Commonwealth introduced photographs of some
of the conditions inside the home.

2
bedroom, the police also saw food on the ceilings and floor and

bare mattresses on the floor. To move between these rooms, the

officers used a hallway that contained trash and dirty clothes,

and that was dark due to inoperable lighting fixtures.

Additionally, chickens and roosters were roaming the home's

guano-covered basement floor and the backyard contained garbage,

ten to fifteen mattresses, tires, bags of clothing, and several

appliances with doors on them.

After officers spoke with the child whom Sanon's neighbor

heard screaming inside the home, Sanon was placed under arrest.

Prior to leaving the home, however, Sanon was permitted to move

several bags of fresh groceries from inside the home into her

car. She then locked the car and had the officers take her

keys. There was also another car in the driveway that was

locked and filled with bags of food, and one of Sanon's children

told the officers that the food in the cars was the only food

available to them at home.

Discussion. In analyzing whether there is sufficient

evidence to support a conviction, the "question is whether,

after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We review this

3
question de novo. See Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 83 Mass. App.

Ct. 406, 410 (2013).

Under G. L. c. 265, § 13L, "[w]hoever wantonly or

recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of

serious bodily injury . . . to a child or wantonly or recklessly

fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where

there is a duty to act shall be punished." This statutory

standard is exacting. For the purposes of the statute, the

Legislature has defined "serious bodily injury" as "bodily

injury which results in a permanent disfigurement, protracted

loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb or organ, or

substantial risk of death." Id. Furthermore, our case law is

explicit that, to establish a "substantial risk" of such an

injury, the Commonwealth must demonstrate "a good deal more than

a possibility" of that injury. Commonwealth v. Coggeshall, 473

Mass. 665, 668 (2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Hendricks, 452

Mass. 97, 103 (2008). Based on these standards, the

Commonwealth's evidence in the present case supported the

investigating officers' concern for Sanon's children, but was

not sufficient to prove that Sanon's conduct put those children

at a substantial risk of serious bodily injury. G. L. c. 265,

§ 13L.

Even in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the

evidence did not support the Commonwealth's contention that

4
Sanon endangered her children by leaving them unsupervised. The

evidence at trial was that Sanon's mother was at home with the

children when Sanon was not there. Neither the ten year old

child's claim that she was "in charge" when Sanon was absent,

nor Sanon's mother's lack of English proficiency, demonstrated

that Sanon's mother could not or did not provide adequate

supervision of the minor children. The children were thus not

at risk of serious bodily injury on this ground.3 See

Commonwealth v. Santos, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 561-562 (2018)

(parent leaving three year old child alone in one room of home

while in another room of same home did not provide probable

cause for charge of reckless endangerment of child).

The Commonwealth likewise failed to prove that Sanon's

children were at serious risk of bodily injury due to a lack of

edible food or accessible water in the home. Although Sanon

removed fresh food from the home before leaving under arrest,

there is no evidence that she otherwise deprived her children of

food. To the contrary, an officer testified at trial that

Sanon's children did not appear to be malnourished. Likewise,

3 The facts of Commonwealth v. Nababi, 99 Mass. App. Ct.
1120 (2021), the unpublished decision on which the Commonwealth
relies when making this argument, are readily distinguishable
from the present case. See id. (child recklessly endangered
when left unsupervised in crib for several hours, and at other
times supervised by two children age eleven or younger with no
adults present).

5
the evidence that an accumulation of dirty dishes in the kitchen

sink gave officers the impression that the faucet was

inaccessible was not sufficient to establish that Sanon failed

to provide her children with access to drinking water in the

home. Absent a showing that Sanon's children were being denied

food or water on a more "protracted" basis, the Commonwealth

thus did not prove the existence of a substantial risk of

serious bodily injury on this basis. Commonwealth v. Leonard,

90 Mass. App. Ct. 187, 195 n.8 (2016) (listing malnutrition and

dehydration as "[e]xamples of conditions that, when protracted,

can constitute substantial bodily injury" under G. L. c. 265,

§ 13L).

When considering the Commonwealth's evidence of the

cluttered and unsanitary conditions in Sanon's home and

backyard, and conditions that could potentially be hazardous for

children,4 we reach a similar conclusion. In doing so, we do not

blind ourselves to the commonsense proposition that proper

hygiene, sanitation, and safety are conducive to good health.

That, however, is not our standard. To the extent that the

Commonwealth presented evidence that the conditions in Sanon's

home presented a risk of harm to her children, it either failed

to show that the risk was more than speculative, or failed to

4 Namely, the poor lighting in the hallway of the home, and
the appliances in the backyard.

6
show that the potential harm reached the level of "serious

bodily injury." G. L. c. 265, § 13L. See Coggeshall, 473 Mass.

at 668, quoting Hendricks, 452 Mass. at 103 ("in the context of

[G. L. c. 265,] § 13L a 'substantial risk' means 'a good deal

more than a possibility'"); Commonwealth v. Costa, 97 Mass. App.

Ct. 447, 451-452 (2020) (evidence that parent left child in car

demonstrated "negligence at the most," because Commonwealth's

contention that child "could have injured herself in any number

of ways" amounted to "nothing more than speculation").

Accordingly, the convictions for reckless endangerment of a

child under G. L. c. 265, § 13L, must be reversed.5

Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above, the judgments

are reversed and the findings are set aside. Judgments shall

enter for the defendant.

So ordered.

By the Court (Henry, Hand &
Brennan, JJ.6),

Clerk

Entered: January 9, 2025.

5 Given our conclusion, we need not and do not reach the
question whether Sanon acted wantonly or recklessly. See G. L.
c. 265, § 13L.

6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

7