Metro

The conviction and prison sentence imposed on a Huntingdon man for the sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl that occurred in 2016 has been affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

A Huntingdon County jury in 2024 found Justin Michael Burks, now 43 years old, guilty of aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault and corruption of minors for an incident that occurred when Burks, the young girl and her mother, who was a friend of Burks, visited the home of a relative.

Burks was charged with two separate acts during the visit.

One incident involved illegal touching of the child while in a swimming pool.

Later that day, Burks allegedly sent a note to the girl asking, “how long would you want to kiss me: short or long?”

The girl selected “short.”

Later, while watching a movie in the living room of the home, Burks brought the girl a drink that caused her to feel “extremely tired.”

He later followed her to the room where she was to sleep and resumed “the same touching that had occurred in the pool,” according to the Superior Court opinion.

The same charges were filed for each of the two incidents.

Burks was found not guilty on one set of charges but guilty on the other set.

“The verdict slip did not indicate whether Burks’ conviction stemmed from what occurred in the pool or in the bedroom,” the appeals court opinion noted.

However, Huntingdon County Judge George N. Zanic sentenced Burks to a prison term of four to eight years and designated him a Tier III sexual offender, which means lifetime registration under Megan’s Law.

Burks presently is serving his sentence in the State Correctional Institution in Mercer County.

State College attorney Wayne E. Bradburn appealed Burks’ conviction and sentence.

The defense sought to overturn his conviction, contending the guilty verdicts were against the “weight of the evidence.”

For instance, what allegedly occurred during the visit to a relative’s home was not promptly revealed.

The appeals court opinion revealed that the incidents of abuse were not revealed for several years — when the victim was in high school.

She revealed what happened to her while talking to a guidance counselor.

After speaking to the counselor, she told her mother, father and stepmother about the incidents.

The defense also complained there was no supporting evidence to back up her story. The note she received from Burks about kissing him was not preserved.

The defense argued her failure to come forward soon after the assault “heightens the prospect the (victim) is misremembering or conflating false realities,” the defense insisted.

Superior Court Judges Alice Dubow, Jill Beck and Timika Lane pointed out that Zanic, in his review of the case, found the defense arguments “unpalatable.”

The victim had a “troubled relationship with her mother and failed to understand what had happened between herself and Burks, and possibly feared her revelation of the incidents would create a wedge between her mother and Burks at the time of the incident,” the Superior Court reasoned.

The Superior Court noted, “The trial court found (Burks’ arguments) are based on discredited beliefs and suspicions and veer into the realm of victim blaming.”

The appeals court judges then ruled that Zanic did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the challenge to the weight of the evidence.

The defense also charged that Burks’ sentence was excessive and did not consider mitigating factors and his rehabilitative needs.

Since the incidents with the child, the defense argued, Burks has overcome his extensive history of alcohol abuse, has thrived in his career and has been “a more present” father to his own children.

The appeals court panel explained the trial court, before sentencing Burks, heard witnesses on his behalf and allowed him to relate his dedication to his children and his professional achievements.

That said, “We find no basis to overturn the trial court’s sentencing decision,” the appeals court stated.