Justin W. Kearns, convicted of endangering the welfare of his two-year-old daughter, appealed his conviction, raising procedural and evidentiary issues. Though his case did not hinge on sovereign citizen arguments, elements of this pseudo-legal ideology, such as his reference to himself as a “flesh-and-blood” individual, formed part of his defense approach.
The case arose from an incident in September 2020, when Kearns ingested heroin and became unconscious while serving as the sole caregiver for his young daughter in their Warminster Township apartment. When the child’s mother returned home, she found herself locked out, unable to rouse Kearns, and saw her daughter unsupervised inside the apartment. Emergency responders forcibly entered the residence and found Kearns unresponsive, with his daughter wandering the apartment in unsafe conditions. Evidence at the scene, including a clear plastic baggie, suggested recent heroin use. After being revived, Kearns admitted to emergency responders that he had snorted heroin. Medical records later confirmed an accidental opioid overdose.
At trial, Kearns moved to suppress his medical records, arguing that the search warrant used to obtain them was not supported by probable cause. The court denied this motion, admitting the records, which detailed his overdose diagnosis. The jury ultimately convicted him of endangering the welfare of a child but acquitted him of reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced Kearns to 42 to 84 months in prison. On appeal, Kearns raised issues of insufficient evidence, improper evidentiary rulings, and excessive sentencing.
Kearns’ defense invoked his identification as a “flesh-and-blood” individual. While these arguments were not central to his legal claims, they reflected a broader attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the proceedings. The court, consistent with precedent, dismissed such assertions as frivolous and without legal basis, reaffirming that sovereign citizen defenses do not exempt individuals from criminal accountability or court jurisdiction.
The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support Kearns’ conviction. Testimony and evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Kearns was unconscious for an extended period while his child was left in hazardous conditions, including access to ungated stairs and plastic bags. The court emphasized that the crime of endangering the welfare of a child does not require proof of actual harm, only that the child was exposed to circumstances threatening their physical or psychological welfare.
Kearns also challenged the admission of his medical records, arguing that their admission violated his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause. The court agreed that the records were improperly admitted but deemed the error harmless. It concluded that the remaining untainted evidence—Kearns’ admissions to emergency responders and testimony from law enforcement and EMTs—was overwhelming and supported the jury’s verdict.
Additionally, Kearns objected to the admission of the plastic baggie and a prison phone call excerpt, arguing these items were prejudicial. The court upheld their admissibility, finding their probative value outweighed any potential prejudice. Finally, the court rejected Kearns’ claim that his sentence was excessive, citing his extensive criminal history, refusal to cooperate with child welfare authorities, and lack of accountability.
The court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Kearns affirmed Kearns’ conviction and sentence, reiterating the futility of sovereign citizen defenses in criminal cases. This case serves as a reminder that such arguments have no legal merit and that courts will focus on substantive legal and procedural issues in determining guilt and sentencing. Kearns’ reliance on pseudo-legal rhetoric could not detract from the clear evidence of his neglect and the endangerment of his child.
Case citation: 2024 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3286