## Facts

- William Lynn served as Secretary for Clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, with responsibility for clergy assignments and responding to clergy sexual-abuse matters.
- Lynn had access to internal records documenting allegations of clergy sexual misconduct with minors and reviewed materials identifying priests, including Edward Avery, as having prior accusations involving minors.
- Despite knowledge of Avery’s history, Lynn recommended or approved Avery’s assignment to a parish with an attached school and ready access to children.
- After Avery’s assignment, Avery sexually assaulted D.G., a 10-year-old altar boy at the parish.
- The Commonwealth prosecuted Lynn under the pre-2007 endangering the welfare of children statute, alleging that Lynn knowingly endangered children by violating a duty of care and protection through his handling of Avery’s placement and restrictions.
- A jury convicted Lynn of endangering the welfare of children, and the trial court imposed a term of imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the pre-2007 endangering the welfare of children statute requires proof that the defendant directly supervised the child victim.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show Lynn was an “other person supervising the welfare of a child” based on his institutional role and responsibilities, even without personal contact with the victim.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s ruling that the evidence was insufficient and reinstated the conviction as to legal sufficiency.
- The court held that direct, hands-on, or day-to-day supervision of the child is not required by the statutory phrase “other person supervising the welfare of a child.”
- The court concluded the evidence permitted the jury to find that Lynn, as Secretary for Clergy responsible for addressing clergy sexual abuse risks, supervised children’s welfare within the meaning of the statute.
- Applying that interpretation, the court found the evidence sufficient that Lynn knowingly endangered children by violating a duty of care and protection through decisions and omissions regarding Avery’s assignment and continued access to children.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a) (pre-2007), the statute focuses on supervision of a child’s welfare, not necessarily supervision of the child’s day-to-day activities.
- “Other person supervising the welfare of a child” can include an institutional or administrative official who has assumed responsibility for protecting children and whose decisions materially affect children’s safety.
- A duty of care, protection, or support may arise from an official role and responsibilities, and knowingly violating that duty in a way that exposes children to risk can satisfy EWOC.
- Appellate sufficiency review asks whether the evidence, viewed in the Commonwealth’s favor, could allow a rational jury to find each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court held that EWOC liability under the pre-2007 statute is not limited to defendants with direct supervision of a specific child; it also reaches institutional officials who supervise children’s welfare through assigned protective responsibilities and who knowingly violate a duty of care in a manner that endangers children.


Commonwealth v. Lynn, 114 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2015)