Degren v. State

⁴⁰⁴ CATHELL, Judge. In this case we must determine whether a person with responsibility for a minor child who fails to prevent that child from being raped while the child is in her presence may be convicted of sexual abuse under the child abuse statute. In addition, we must ascertain whether the trial court erred in denying motions with respect to comments made by the State’s Attorney during closing arguments that implied the defendant, by virtue of her status as a criminal defendant, had a motive to lie. We shall affirm.

I. Procedural History Sharon Degren, 1 petitioner, was charged in the Circuit Court for Charles County with four counts of child abuse, four counts of second degree rape, three counts of second degree sexual offense, one count of third degree sexual offense, and two counts of conspiracy for her involvement in the molestation of victim Jennifer B. Petitioner moved for and was granted a judgment of acquittal on three counts of second degree rape. Petitioner ultimately was found guilty by a jury of four counts of child abuse and not guilty of three counts of second degree sexual offense. The jury could not agree on a verdict as to one count of second degree rape, one count of third degree sexual offense, and one count of conspiracy. 2 Petitioner was sentenced to four concurrent ten-year sentences. Five years of each sentence were suspended in favor of five years of probation.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. In an unpublished opinion, that court vacated one condition of petitioner’s probation, but affirmed the trial court in all other respects. Degren v. State, 119 Md.App. 814 [No. 1135, 1997 Term, slip op., filed Feb. 25, 1998]. Petitioner filed a Petition ⁴⁰⁵ for Writ of Certiorari in this Court on March 24, 1998.

She presents the following questions for our review: 1. Did the lower courts err in holding that an adult with responsibility for supervision of a child may be guilty of sexual child abuse if she fails to prevent another person’s sexual molestation or exploitation of the child? 2. Did the trial judge err by allowing the prosecutor to tell the jury in closing argument that the “number one reason” for not believing Petitioner’s testimony is that “nobody in this country has more reason to lie than a defendant in a criminal trial”? We granted the petition in order to resolve the important issues raised by this appeal.

II

Facts In the summer of 1996, Jennifer was twelve years old. She had known petitioner and her husband, Nick Degren, for about three years as the Degrens were friends of Jennifer’s mother. At some point, Jennifer’s mother arranged for Jennifer to stay with the Degrens for about a week in June and for two weeks in August of 1996. Jennifer did not object to this arrangement.

We shall set forth a summary of the evidence bearing on the four incidents of alleged child abuse verbatim as recited by petitioner in her brief, which is almost identical to the facts recited by the Court of Special Appeals in its opinion below: 3 Late June, 1996: Jennifer testified that one night she walked into Petitioner and Nick’s bedroom and fell asleep on their bed. When she awoke, Nick was having sexual intercourse with her. Petitioner was sitting on the corner of the bed watching television and watching them. Nick asked Petitioner “if she felt right with him having sexual intercourse with me.” Petitioner said “[s]he really didn’t care.” Nick ceased when Jennifer told him to get off of her.

She left the room, then ⁴⁰⁶ returned and saw Petitioner and Nick having sexual intercourse. On cross-examination, when confronted with a statement she gave to Detective Goldsmith saying she agreed to having sex with Nick, Jennifer denied that she had told the detective that. When shown the same statement, Goldsmith confirmed that Jennifer did say she agreed to have sex with Nick on that occasion. Petitioner, in her testimony, stated that nothing happened in her apartment in late June, 1996, because she did not move into that apartment until July.

August 10,1996: Jennifer testified that on August 10, 1996, on her second visit with the Degrens, she again fell asleep in their bed and again woke up to Nick having vaginal intercourse with her while Petitioner sat on a corner of the bed and watched them. After Nick and Jennifer had sex, Petitioner “ate mo out[,]” by which Jennifer meant that Petitioner’s mouth was touching her vagina. Jennifer acknowledged on cross-examination that her statement to Detective Goldsmith does not mention Petitioner ever putting her mouth on Jennifer’s vagina. In fact, the first person she told about that act was the prosecutor, in January, 1997.

She also denied telling the detective that Petitioner was aware of the rape but did not participate even though that remark is in her statement. Goldsmith confirmed that Jennifer never told him about an act of oral sex performed on her by Petitioner. Petitioner testified that on August 10 she was lying in bed with Nick watching television when Jennifer came in and said she wanted to have sex with him and couldn’t wait another day. She did not intervene because Nick, at times, was abusive and she “was afraid that he would hit [her].” Petitioner stated that the alleged act of oral sex never happened.

August 14, 1996: According to Jennifer, on this occasion Richard Dobsha (“Rick”) was at the apartment and remained there after Nick went to work. Jennifer went to sleep on Nick and ⁴⁰⁷ Petitioner’s bed because their daughter was asleep in Jennifer’s bed. When she woke up, Rick and Petitioner were engaged in sex on the bed. Jennifer went back to sleep only to be awakened by Rick having intercourse with her.

While this was taking place, Petitioner “was talking sexual.” After Rick finished having sex with Jennifer, Petitioner “ate me out again.” However, she told Detective Goldsmith that she came into the room while Rick and Petitioner were engaged in sex; that she removed her clothing and lay down in bed next to them; that Rick moved over and had sex with her, ejaculating in her vagina, while Petitioner “had sex talk with him;” that Petitioner then experienced stomach pains and called her father to take her to the hospital. In her testimony Jennifer denied telling Goldsmith that she entered the bedroom, took off her clothes and got in bed with Rick and Petitioner. Rick testified that on August 14 Jennifer told him she wanted to have sex with him. She sat on his lap, but he pushed her away.

Jennifer rubbed his legs and his private parts and then removed her clothes. Rick tried to have sex with Petitioner but could not sustain an erection. She performed oral sex on Jennifer, after which the women reversed roles. While that was taking place, Rick tried to insert his penis in Jennifer’s vagina but was not entirely successful.

He admitted on cross-examination that in his statement he said nothing about Petitioner performing oral sex on Jennifer. According to Petitioner, Jennifer initially wanted sex with Nick. After he left for work, she jumped onto Rick’s lap and said, “take me, here I am, ... and I need to have sex.” Rick pushed her away and said he wanted to have sex with Petitioner. However, Petitioner could not have sex due to a ruptured cyst.

After lying in a hot tub for about an hour, she came into the bedroom and saw Jennifer and Rick having intercourse. Rick then tried to persuade Jennifer to have sex with Petitioner. At first unwilling, Jennifer eventually tried but Petitioner refused to participate. Petitioner denied having oral sex with Jennifer. ⁴⁰⁸ August 15, 1996: Petitioner, Nick and Jennifer were again in the bedroom when, according to Jennifer, Petitioner inserted a vibrator in her vagina.

Thereafter, Petitioner put the vibrator in Jennifer while Jennifer and Nick were engaged in intercourse. She acknowledged on cross-examination that she never told Detective Goldsmith that Petitioner used a vibrator on her and that her first mention of it was to the prosecutor during their third discussion of the case. Petitioner testified that she returned from the hospital on the morning of August 15 feeling sleepy from medication she had been given. She lay down.

Jennifer told Nick she was ready for sex. Petitioner left the room as they were having intercourse. She denied using a vibrator on Jennifer and denied even owning one. Lori Owens, a friend of Petitioner, testified that in July or August of 1996 Jennifer, apparently unaware that Ms. Owens knew the Degrens, began telling her that she was staying with a “guy named Nick ... and his wife Sharon,” that she had had sex with Nick quite a bit, and that he loved her and planned to leave his wife for her.

When Ms. Owens revealed that she knew the Degrens, Jennifer “shut up.” [Footnote omitted.] [Alterations in original.] III. Petitioner’s Failure to Prevent the Rape of Jennifer Under Maryland Code (1957, 1996 RepLVol.), Article 27, section 35C(b)(1), 4 “[a] parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for the supervision of a child ... who causes abuse to the child is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than 15 years.” 5 Abuse includes both “[t]he sustaining of physical injury by a child as ⁴⁰⁹ a result of cruel or inhumane treatment or as a result of a malicious act ... under circumstances that indicate that the child’s health or welfare is harmed or threatened thereby,” § 35C(a)(2)(i), and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is defined in section 35C(a)(6)(i) as “any act that involves sexual molestation or exploitation of a child.” The statute goes on to provide that “ ‘[s]exual abuse’ includes, but is not limited to: 1. Incest, rape, or sexual offense in any degree; 2.

Sodomy; and 3. Unnatural or perverted sexual practices.” § 35C(a)(6)(ii). Petitioner argues she should not be held criminally liable for the sexual abuse of Jennifer because her omission or failure to prevent another person’s act of sexual molestation or exploitation is not punishable under the language of the statute. In support of this argument, petitioner suggests that the plain meaning of the word “act” as used in section 35C(a)(6)(i) denotes a deed or something affirmative as opposed to an omission.

Additionally, petitioner argues that under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, because her failure to prevent or stop the rape is not within the class of actions specifically prohibited by section 35C(a)(6)(ii), her inaction was not the type of conduct the Legislature sought to prevent. Finally, petitioner seeks to persuade this Court that the Legislature did not intend to criminalize one’s failure to act in the context of sexual abuse. The State, on the other hand, argues that under the plain meaning of the language of the statute, the legislative intent, and the weight of the authority of decisions from this Court and other jurisdictions, petitioner’s omission or failure to act constituted a criminal offense under section 35C. We shall resolve petitioner’s first question by interpreting the definition of sexual abuse in section 35C(a)(6)(i).

Before making this interpretation, however, we shall discuss several important cases addressing criminal liability for one’s failure to cease or prevent the physical or sexual abuse of a child. Almost forty years ago, in Palmer v. State, 223 Md. 341, 353 , 164 A.2d 467, 474 (1960), this Court affirmed a mother’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter based on her failure to ⁴¹⁰ protect her infant daughter from the repeated abuse of her paramour. In that case, shortly after they married and subsequent to the birth of their daughter, defendant Barbara Ann Palmer and her husband were separated. Ms. Palmer then met and began a romantic relationship with Edward McCue.

Eventually, the two, along with Ms. Palmer’s young daughter, Terry, moved in together. Various witnesses testified that soon after moving into their residence, it became apparent that McCue severely and repeatedly beat little Terry, causing black eyes and large bruises all over the child’s body. One witness, a downstairs neighbor, testified that she confronted Ms. Palmer and McCue about the abuse, but McCue told her to mind her own business and that he would do what he liked to the child. Ms. Palmer later pleaded with the witness not to have McCue arrested and said the beatings were not as bad as they sounded.

Terry continued to suffer great physical abuse at the hand of McCue in the days that followed. At approximately 6:00 P.M. on the day of Terry’s death, McCue hit the infant with a blow or blows with his fist, hand, and belt that, along with other severe injuries, “literally ripped the infant’s liver nearly in two and which tore the mesentery, a fatty, vascular tissue supporting the colon by connection to the abdominal wall.” Id. at 348 , 164 A.2d at 471 . Terry died two to three hours later. The State did not contend that Ms. Palmer ever inflicted severe punishment upon her daughter.

The State’s theory, rather, was that in her failure to protect or remove Terry from the abusive situation, Ms. Palmer should be held criminally liable for her death. The trial court agreed and concluded that Ms. Palmer was grossly and criminal negligent in her failure to protect her daughter. Id. at 351 , 164 A.2d at 473 . On appeal, Ms. Palmer argued she could not be criminally liable for the death of her daughter because her conduct did not amount to criminal negligence and was not the proximate cause of Terry’s death.

We affirmed the judgment of the trial court. First, we noted that by statute, parents are charged with the “support, ⁴¹¹ care, nurture, welfare and education” of their children. 6 Id. at 343 , 164 A.2d at 468 . Ms. Palmer clearly breached this duty in permitting and, in fact, compelling this poor little defenseless urchin to remain in an environment where she was subjected to merciless, inhumane and inordinate brutality of a protracted nature, manifested a recklessness of justice and the rights and feelings of the tiny infant in such a manner so as to support the finding that the appellant’s conduct and actions displayed “a wanton or reckless disregard for human life.” The actions of McCue were so outrageous as to put any reasonable person on guard that the child’s life was in real and imminent peril. Manifestly, the appellant should, and could, have removed little Terry from the cruelty and danger.

Id. at 351-52 , 164 A.2d at 473 . We then went on to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that Ms. Palmer’s negligence was the proximate cause of her daughter’s death. Quoting at length from section 68 of 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure (12th ed.1957), we stated: “A person is only criminally liable for what he has caused, that is, there must be a causal relationship between his act and the harm sustained for which he is prosecuted. It is not essential to the existence of a causal relationship that the ultimate harm which has resulted was foreseen or intended by the actor.

It is sufficient that the ultimate harm is one which a reasonable man would foresee as being reasonably related to the acts of the defendant.... To constitute the cause of the harm, it is not necessary that the defendant’s act be the sole reason for the realization of the harm which has been sustained by the victim. The defendant does not cease to be responsible for his otherwise ⁴¹² criminal conduct because there were other conditions which contributed to the same result.” Palmer, 223 Md. at 353 , 164 A.2d at 474 (footnotes omitted). To be sure, we noted, the direct cause of Terry’s death was McCue’s physical abuse.

His violent behavior, however, would have given any reasonable person notice that Terry’s life was in danger. Ms. Palmer should have removed her daughter from this dangerous situation and because she failed to do so, we held, her inaction proximately caused Terry’s death. Id. Fifteen years later, in State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416 , 348 A.2d 275 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 942 , 96 S.Ct. 1680 , 48 L.Ed.2d 185 (1976), we addressed a mother’s failure to seek medical assistance for her three and one-half-year-old daughter after the child had been physically abused by the person in whose custody she had been left.

In Fabritz , the defendant, Virginia Fabritz, had left her daughter, Windy, in the care of Thomas and Ann Crockett, with whom Ms. Fabritz resided, for about two days. Ms. Fabritz noticed upon her return that Windy was listless. Mr. Crockett told her that Windy was sick because he drove her on his motorcycle and the ride had been very bumpy. Later that afternoon, Windy complained of stomach cramps and had a fever.

Ms. Fabritz thought Windy had the flu, but when she bathed her, she noticed that Windy’s body had been badly beaten. Windy remained listless the entire afternoon, but Ms. Fabritz “did not take her to the hospital because she ‘was too ashamed of the bruises on her daughter’s body.’” Id. at 418 , 348 A.2d at 277 . Sometime that evening, Ms. Fabritz asked someone to look at Windy. When asked about the bruises all over Windy’s body, Ms. Fabritz responded: “ ‘Tommy [Crockett] hits hard.’ ” Id. at 419 , 348 A.2d at 277 (alteration in original). 7 Mrs. Crockett eventually took Windy to the hospital, where she later was pronounced dead. ⁴¹³ Ms. Fabritz was charged with and convicted by a jury of child abuse.

There was no evidence that Ms. Fabritz struck the blows that injured or killed Windy or that Ms. Fabritz knew Mr. Crockett would abuse her. There was evidence, however, that a child who suffered the injuries from which Windy ultimately died would have complained of such injuries and, furthermore, that Windy likely would have survived had she received medical attention up to an hour earlier. The issue on appeal to this Court was whether, to be found guilty under the child abuse statute, the accused must have caused the injuries, not just aggravated them by failing to seek medial assistance for the child. In interpreting the language of the child abuse statute, we explored at great length the legislative history in enacting section 35C, which at that time was codified as section 35A.

We said: Codified under the subtitle “Child Abuse,” the statute’s declared legislative purpose is “the protection of children who have been the subject of abuse.... ” As heretofore indicated, the statute defines “abuse” to encompass “any physical injury or injuries sustained by a child as a result of cruel or inhumane treatment or as a result of malicious act or acts.” Under the statute, any person having custody of a child under eighteen years of age who “causes” such abuse is guilty of a felony. The precursor to § 35A was chapter 743 of the Acts of 1963, which was originally codified as Code (1957) Article 27, § 11A and included under the subtitle “Assault on Children”; that statute, which was recodified as Article 27, § 35A by chapter 500 of the Acts of 1970, provided that any person having custody of a minor child under fourteen years of age “who maliciously beats, strikes or otherwise mistreats such minor child to such degree as to require medical treatment” woúld be guilty of a felony. It would appear from its terms that that enactment was not intended to reach acts of individuals not constituting, in one form or another, an assault on a child. It was not until § 35A was amended by chapter 835 of the Acts of 1973 that the Legislature repealed the “maliciously beats, strikes, or ⁴¹⁴ otherwise mistreats” test of child abuse, and substituted in its place a new and different measure of the offense—one defined by new subsection (b) 7 in terms of physical injuries caused by “cruel or inhumane treatment or as a result of malicious act or acts.” According to its title, one of the purposes underlying the 1973 amendment of § 35A was “generally extending] the law of child abuse.” Considering the particular use and association of words and definitions used in § 35A, we think a doubt or ambiguity exists as to the exact reach of the statute’s provisions, justifying application of the principle that permits courts in such circumstances to ascertain and give effect to the real intention of the Legislature.

See Clerk v. Chesapeake Beach Park, 251 Md. 657 , 248 A.2d 479 (1968); Domain v. Bosley, 242 Md. 1 , 217 A.2d 555 (1966). Id. at 422-23, 348 A.2d at 279-80 . We went on to conclude that the Legislature intended to broaden, through its amendments, the conduct punishable by the child abuse statute by repealing language that indicated the injury had to result from the hand of the accused and replacing it with more encompassing terms making an individual liable if the child’s abuse resulted from “cruel or inhumane treatment” or by a “malicious act or acts.” See id. at 424 , 348 A.2d at 280 . In addition, we reasoned, the plain meaning of the statute supported this interpretation: Affording the term “physical injury” the broad meaning that the context of § 35A would seem to mandate, we think a parent would be criminally responsible as having “caused” such a physical injury to his child in the sense contemplated by the statute if, as a result of the parent’s “cruel or inhumane treatment,” the child suffered bodily harm additional to that initially sustained as a consequence of the injury originally inflicted upon him.

Id. We ultimately held that Ms. Fabritz’s failure to seek medical attention for her daughter was cruel and inhumane and, accordingly, she was properly convicted of child abuse. Id. at 425-26, 348 A.2d at 280-81 . 8 ⁴¹⁵ Finally, in Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 , 396 A.2d 1054 (1979), we considered whether defendant Joyce Pope, a friend with whom Melissa Vera Norris and her three-month-old son, Demiko Lee Norris, were staying temporarily, could be convicted of child abuse as a person who had “responsibility for the supervision of a minor child” for her failure to intervene in or seek medical advice for Demiko when his mother physically abused him in Pope’s presence. Ms. Norris and Demiko stayed with Ms. Pope one Friday night after church when Ms. Norris refused to go home to her grandparents’ house, where she lived permanently.

Ms. Norris claimed her grandparents’ house was on fire, but it was not. In addition, both while at church earlier and after arriving at Ms. Pope’s, Ms. Norris went in and out of various mental states of religious frenzy in which she thought she was God. Ms. Norris preached and ranted and then resumed to her normal self without noticing her transitions in personality. These episodes grew more severe.

On Sunday morning while bathing the baby to go to church, Ms. Norris changed into “God” again and believed that Satan was hiding in her son. She began to exorcize the spirit verbally and then punched and poked Demiko repeatedly in his stomach, chest, and private areas. She beat his head and even lifted the baby up by putting her hands in his mouth, shaking him violently. Ms. Pope watched this episode but did nothing.

Eventually, the two women and Ms. Pope’s sister went to church with the baby. There someone realized the baby was badly hurt and sent for an ambulance. The baby was pronounced dead. Ms. Pope eventually gave a statement to police as to what had happened.

She was charged with and ⁴¹⁶ convicted of child abuse under section 35A, now section 35C, of Article 27. We discussed in Pope, 284 Md. at 318-20 , 396 A.2d at 1060-62 , our decision in Fabritz, 276 Md. at 425-26 , 348 A.2d at 280-81 , that a parent’s “act of omission” in failing to obtain medical assistance for her abused child constituted child abuse. We noted, however, that Fabritz did not address the class of persons to whom the child abuse statute applied. After reviewing the legislative history and the plain meaning of the statute, we determined a person with “responsibility for the supervision of a minor child” meant that [a]bsent a court order or award by some appropriate proceeding pursuant to statutory authority, we think it to be self-evident that responsibility for supervision of a minor child may be obtained only upon the mutual consent, expressed or implied, by the one legally charged with the care of the child and by the one assuming the responsibility.

In other words, a parent may not impose responsibility for the supervision of his or her minor child on a third person unless that person accepts the responsibility, and a third person may not assume such responsibility unless the parent grants it. Pope, 284 Md. at 323-24 , 396 A.2d at 1063 . Therefore, Fabritz clearly applied not only to parents but to those individuals who had responsibility for the child and failed to act in the child’s protection. Under the circumstances in Pope , however, the evidence did not support that Ms. Pope was a person with responsibility for Demiko and we set aside her conviction.

Id. at 330 , 396 A.2d at 1067 . The issue before this Court is related to the discussed cases in that petitioner, a person who had responsibility for Jennifer, failed to intervene while Jennifer was being sexually abused. The only real distinction in this case is that Jennifer was abused sexually rather than physically by two men on different occasions and on each occasion, petitioner either failed to come to Jennifer’s aid or, as the evidence tended to show, actually watched Jennifer being raped. As we have said, we must determine whether section 35C penal ⁴¹⁷ izes an individual for his or her act of omission in failing to intervene when the child is sexually abused.

This determination depends upon whether sexual abuse, as defined in the section 35C(a)(6)(i), includes a failure to prevent the molestation or exploitation of a child. “The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Oaks v. Connors, 339 Md. 24, 35 , 660 A.2d 423, 429 (1995). As we often have said, the starting point for determining legislative intent is the language of the statute itself. Marriott Employees Fed. Credit Union v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 346 Md. 437, 444-45 , 697 A.2d 455, 458 (1997); Stanford v. Maryland Police Training & Correctional Comm’n, 346 Md. 374, 380 , 697 A.2d 424, 427 (1997) (quoting Tidewater v. Mayor of Havre de Grace, 337 Md. 338, 344 , 653 A.2d 468, 472 (1995)); Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 256 , 674 A.2d 951, 957 (1996); Romm v. Flax, 340 Md. 690, 693 , 668 A.2d 1, 2 (1995); Oaks, 339 Md. at 35 , 660 A.2d at 429 ; Mauzy v. Hornbeck, 285 Md. 84, 92 , 400 A.2d 1091, 1096 (1979); Board of Supervisors v. Weiss, 217 Md. 133, 136 , 141 A.2d 734, 736 (1958). Where the statutory language is plain and free from ambiguity, and expresses a definite and simple meaning, courts do not normally look beyond the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent.

Marriott Employees, 346 Md. at 445 , 697 A.2d at 458 ; Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 515 , 525 A.2d 628, 633 (1987); Hunt v. Montgomery County, 248 Md. 403, 414 , 237 A.2d 35, 41 (1968). In Tracey v. Tracey, 328 Md. 380, 387 , 614 A.2d 590, 594 (1992), however, this Court opined: While the language of the statute is the primary source for determining legislative intention, the plain meaning rule of construction is not absolute; rather, the statute must be construed reasonably with reference to the purpose, aim, or policy of the enacting body. The Court will look at the larger context, including the legislative purpose, within which statutory language appears. Construction of a statute which is unreasonable, illogical, unjust, or inconsistent with common sense should be avoided. [Citations omitted.] ⁴¹⁸ Thus, “ ‘[w]e are not constrained ... by ... “the literal or usual meaning” of the terms at issue.’ ” Edgewater Liquors, Inc. v. Liston, 349 Md. 803, 808 , 709 A.2d 1301, 1303 (1998) (quoting Romm, 340 Md. at 693 , 668 A.2d at 2 ).

Rather, we must “interpret the meaning and effect of the language in light of the objectives and purposes of the provision enacted.” Lewis v. State, 348 Md. 648, 654 , 705 A.2d 1128, 1131 (1998) (citing Gargliano v. State, 334 Md. 428, 435 , 639 A.2d 675, 678 (1994); Kaczorowski, 309 Md. at 513-16 , 525 A.2d at 632-33 ). Furthermore, we should construe the statute in a manner that results in an interpretation “reasonable and consonant with logic and common sense.” Lewis, 348 Md. at 654 , 705 A.2d at 1131 . See also Edgewater Liquors, 349 Md. at 808 , 709 A.2d at 1303 . To discern the intent of the Legislature in enacting and amending section 35C, we look first to the language of the statute and examine its plain meaning.

Sexual abuse is defined, as we have said, as “any act that involves sexual molestation or exploitation of a child.” § 35C(a)(6)(i) (emphasis added). The parties disagree on the meaning of the word “act.” The term is not defined in the child abuse statute. Therefore, we turn to its common dictionary meaning. Act is defined in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11 (10th ed.1998) as “the doing of a thing: DEED”; “something done voluntarily”; “the process of doing: ACTION.” As respondent points out, however, some commentators have suggested that “[i]n a legislative enactment, ... if the phrase act or omission is found, the first word is being employed in the limited sense of act of commission; whereas if only the word ‘act’ is used, it is construed ordinarily to include also forbearance or omission.” Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law § 4, at 658 (3d ed.1982) (footnotes omitted).

This interpretation generally is applicable and an act of omission culpable if the accused had some duty to act such as protecting a child from sexual abuse. 9 Finally, ⁴¹⁹ Black’s Law Dictionary 25 (6th ed.1990), in its definition of “act” in the context of a “criminal act” states that “[a]n omission or failure to act may constitute an act for purpose of criminal law.” Additionally, the word “act” in the definition of sexual abuse is modified by the phrase “that involves sexual molestation or exploitation.” § 35C(a)(6)(i)(emphasis added). The word “involves” connotes a broad sense of inclusion, such as an act relating to sexual molestation or exploitation. See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 617 (defining “involve” as “to engage as a participant” or “to have an effect on” and “involved” as “being affected or implicated”). This modifying clause, therefore, appears to expand the scope of the word “act” from just the deed of molestation or exploitation into something done by the accused that relates to the molestation or exploitation.

Because the word “act” in the definition of sexual abuse clearly is capable of more than one interpretation, we must turn to other means of discerning legislative intent. This Court examined the amendments to the child abuse statute as related to physical abuse in Fabritz, 276 Md. at 422-23 , 348 A.2d at 279-80 . There we concluded that the General Assembly, through its various changes to the language of the statute, consistently expanded its scope and applicability to better achieve the goal of protecting “children who have been the subject of abuse.” See id. at 423 , 348 A.2d at 279 (quoting 1973 Md. Laws, Chap. 835 (title clause)). In 1973, for instance, the General Assembly broadened the conduct covered by the statute to include not only direct physical abuse but, as we have said, an act or failure to act that ⁴²⁰ constituted cruel or inhumane treatment or a malicious act or acts.

In 1974, the Legislature again amended the child abuse statute to include sexual abuse within the definition of child abuse: “ ‘Abuse’ shall mean ... :(B) any sexual abuse of a child, whether physical injuries are sustained or not.” 1974 Md. Laws, Chap. 554, § (b)(7)(B). Sexual abuse was defined as any act or acts involving sexual molestation or exploitation, including but not limited to incest, rape, carnal knowledge, sodomy or unnatural or perverted sexual practices on [a] child by any parent, adoptive parent or other person who has the permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of a minor child. Id. § (b)(8). The General Assembly declared “as its legislative intent and purpose the protection of children who have been the subject of abuse” and that the purpose of this 1974 amendment was to “expand[] the definition of child abuse [and] defin[e] sexual abuse.” Id.

(introductory paragraph and purpose clause). Petitioner correctly notes that although the Legislature amended the definition of child abuse in 1974 to include sexual abuse, it did not utilize language as broad as that used in the 1973 amendment that expanded the type of conduct culpable as physical abuse to include an act or omission to act. Its failure to do so, petitioner argues, reflects the Legislature’s intent to limit what constitutes sexual abuse to affirmative deeds. We find petitioner’s interpretation unconvincing.

It defies common sense, logic, and the purpose and goals of the child abuse statute and its amendments. Under petitioner’s theory, the Legislature intended to punish a parent or person responsible for the minor for failing to come to the minor’s aid during physical abuse but not sexual abuse. By illustration, if petitioner had sat on the edge of the bed and watched Mr. Degren beat Jennifer, she could have been prosecuted under the statute for her failure to intervene. Because she sat on the bed and watched her husband rape Jennifer, even stating that ⁴²¹ she “didn’t care” whether Mr. Degren molested Jennifer, petitioner, under her interpretation of the statute, cannot be prosecuted for sexual abuse for failing to stop her husband because his actions were not physical abuse. 10 This position is absurd and we refuse to believe the Legislature intended such a result.

Implicit in petitioner’s argument is the notion that the Legislature failed to enact more encompassing language, such as that used in the 1973 amendment of the definition of physical abuse, because it deemed sexual abuse a less serious offense than physical abuse. The language of the statute readily dispels that notion. In section 35C(a)(2)(ii), the Legislature declared in its definition of abuse that sexual abuse constituted abuse, “whether physical injuries are sustained or not.” By clarifying that sexual abuse need not necessarily lead to physical injuries in order to be prosecuted, the legislature recognized the extensive emotional, psychological, or physical damage that sexual abuse can cause a child. Given this clear indication of the Legislature’s awareness of the pervasive harm caused by sexual abuse, we find it difficult to believe that our law-making body, by this statute, would simultaneously punish an individual who watches and fails to intervene during the physical abuse of a child in her care but not punish that person when the child is raped or sexually molested under the same circumstances.

Other courts similarly have held parents or individuals responsible for a child criminally liable for his or her omission to act or failure to seek medical attention for the abused child in his or her care. See State v. Miranda, 245 Conn. 209, 217 , 715 A.2d 680, 685 (1998) (concluding that the defendant, who was the mother’s boyfriend and responsible for the welfare of her children, violated the assault statute for his failure to prevent or protect the child from abuse by the mother); State ⁴²² v. Walden, 306 N.C. 466, 476 , 293 S.E.2d 780, 787 (1982) (“[T]he failure of a parent who is present to take all steps reasonably possible to protect the parent’s child from an attack by another person constitutes an act of omission by the parent showing the parent’s consent and contribution to the crime being committed.”); State v. Ainsworth, 109 N.C.App. 136, 144 , 426 S.E.2d 410, 415 (1993) (holding that the mother’s failure to prevent the rape of her son while she was present and watching the act constituted child abuse); State