Com. v. Ewing, M.
60 WDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 11, 2025Background
- Michael E. Ewing was convicted of ten counts of indecent assault for sexually abusing M.M., a minor, over a period beginning when M.M. was eleven and continuing until he was fifteen.
- The issue on appeal concerns whether the evidence sufficed to prove that nine of those assaults occurred while M.M. was under the age of thirteen, as required under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7).
- The majority vacated nine convictions, reasoning that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those assaults occurred before the victim's thirteenth birthday.
- This dissenting opinion argues that, despite the victim’s inability to remember precise dates due to the elapsed time and nature of the abuse, sufficient evidence supports the jury’s inference the abuse occurred when M.M. was under thirteen.
- The dissent relies on M.M.’s testimony about the ongoing, escalating course of abuse starting at age eleven, as well as case law granting the Commonwealth latitude in establishing dates in child sexual abuse cases.
- The procedural context is an appeal from the judgment of sentence, with this memorandum representing a partial dissent from the majority’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Ewing's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth proved that nine counts of indecent assault occurred before the victim turned thirteen | M.M.'s testimony established a continuous pattern of abuse beginning at age eleven, making it reasonable to infer many acts occurred before age thirteen | The abuse may not have occurred before age thirteen due to lack of specific dates or consistent timeline | Majority vacated nine counts, but dissent argues evidence sufficed and convictions should be sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Devlin, 333 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1975) (Established broad latitude for Commonwealth in fixing dates in child abuse prosecutions)
- Commonwealth v. Groff, 548 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Reinforced that precise date need not be fixed in cases of continuous conduct)
- Commonwealth v. G.D.M., Sr., 926 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Held that young victims’ inability to recall exact dates does not defeat sufficiency where continuous conduct shown)