Commonwealth v. Edgar Andre: Appeals Court Upholds Convictions Despite 20-Year Delay Between Allegations and Indictments
The Massachusetts Appeals Court’s September 4, 2025 decision in Commonwealth v. Edgar Andre (23-P-744) addresses a thorny and often misunderstood area of criminal law: how the Constitution and state law handle long delays between alleged child sexual abuse and the initiation of criminal charges.
For Massachusetts defense lawyers, this case is a cautionary tale about the limits of due process arguments based on pre-indictment delay, the challenges of litigating motions to dismiss decades-old allegations, and the courts’ continuing willingness to permit prosecutions even when physical evidence and records are gone.
This post explains the facts, procedural history, and appellate ruling in Andre, and draws out key lessons for anyone facing historic sexual assault allegations in Massachusetts.
Background: Allegations from the Early 1990s, Indictments in 2016
The allegations in Andre arose from conduct said to have occurred between 1990 and 1994, when the complainant was between eight and twelve years old11-059-25. According to trial testimony, the abuse began after Andre married the girl’s mother and became her stepfather.
In July 1995, when she was twelve, the child disclosed to her family physician, Dr. Barbara Mendes, that Andre had touched her leg while she was sleeping and had digitally raped her. Dr. Mendes filed a report with the Department of Social Services (now the Department of Children and Families).
DCF investigated. Social workers spoke with the victim, her mother, her grandmother, and Andre, and implemented a safety plan that included changing the victim’s sleeping arrangements and installing locks on certain interior doors. After that, the abuse stopped. But no criminal charges were filed at the time11-059-25.
Statute of Limitations Changes Allowed Prosecution Two Decades Later
At the time of the alleged acts (1990–1994), the statute of limitations for child rape (G.L. c. 265 § 23) was ten years. That clock did not begin running until the victim turned sixteen or the offense was reported to law enforcement, whichever came first11-059-25.
In 1996, the Legislature extended the limitations period. Then in 2006, it abolished the limitations period entirely for child sexual offenses—but required independent corroborating evidence for prosecutions brought more than 27 years after the alleged acts.
In August 2015—within that 27-year window—the now-adult complainant reported the decades-old abuse to Boston police. In September 2016, a Suffolk County grand jury indicted Andre on three counts of child rape11-059-25.
After pretrial litigation, including two motions to dismiss, Andre went to trial and was convicted. He appealed.
Issue 1: Due Process Challenge Based on Pre-Indictment Delay
Andre’s primary argument on appeal was that the nearly 20-year delay between the alleged conduct and the indictments violated his constitutional rights to due process (under the Fourteenth Amendment and art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights) and to “justice without delay” (under art. 11 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights)11-059-25.
The Legal Standard
Massachusetts follows the rule set out in Commonwealth v. Imbruglia, 377 Mass. 682 (1979), and reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. George, 430 Mass. 276 (1999). To prevail on a due process challenge based on pre-indictment delay, a defendant must show:
Actual, substantial prejudice to the defense from the delay; and
That the delay was intentionally or recklessly caused by the government to gain a tactical advantage11-059-25.
Failure to prove either prong is fatal.
Andre’s Claim of Prejudice
Andre claimed prejudice because:
Tufts New England Medical Center could no longer locate records from the complainant’s 1995–1996 sexual assault evaluation.
The Department of Social Services may have lost handwritten records from its investigation.
His own memory of conversations from the mid-1990s had faded.
The complainant’s great-grandmother—her primary caregiver at the time—had died.
The Appeals Court found these claims insufficient. A defendant must show, “on concrete evidence, and not simply by a fertile imagination, a reasonable possibility that access to the lost items would have produced evidence favorable to his cause” (Commonwealth v. Patten, 401 Mass. 20, 22 (1987))11-059-25.
Here, there was no reason to think the missing records would have been exculpatory. The great-grandmother had died before the complainant ever disclosed the abuse, and she was not an eyewitness to the alleged acts. And despite claiming memory loss, Andre testified in detail at trial about conversations he had at the time.
No Proof of Intentional or Reckless Delay
There was also no evidence that prosecutors or police intentionally or recklessly caused the delay. The record showed that the complainant’s mother refused to cooperate in 1995–1996 because she feared retaliation from Andre, felt intimidated, and did not want to bring shame on the family11-059-25.
An assistant district attorney wrote in December 1996 that the mother had refused to respond to repeated requests to speak. The Commonwealth also presented grand jury testimony that the case had originally been closed because the complainant was a juvenile and her mother would not go forward.
Because Andre failed to show either prejudice or intentional/reckless government delay, the Appeals Court rejected his due process challenge.
Issue 2: Speedy Trial and Post-Indictment Delay
Andre also claimed his right to a speedy trial under art. 11 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights was violated because of delays between indictment (2016) and trial11-059-25.
Under the Barker v. Wingo test (407 U.S. 514 (1972)), courts consider:
Length of the delay
Reasons for the delay
Defendant’s assertions of the right
Prejudice to the defense
But Andre had not raised any detailed argument about this in his motion to dismiss, and on appeal he provided no information showing which parts of the delay were caused by the Commonwealth or how they prejudiced him. Because the presumption of prejudice from delay alone is not enough, the Appeals Court found this claim waived and meritless11-059-25.
Issue 3: Evidence of Uncharged Sexual Conduct
At trial, the judge allowed the complainant to testify about uncharged conduct: open-mouthed kissing, waking up to Andre touching her thigh, and finding her pajamas untied while asleep. She also wrote a note threatening to call police if he did not stop11-059-25.
Andre argued this was improper propensity evidence. But the Appeals Court held that the testimony was admissible to show a pattern of conduct, intent, and the nature of the relationship between Andre and the child—permitted purposes under Commonwealth v. Centeno, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 564 (2015), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 667 (2001)11-059-25.
The court also found that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in concluding that the probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice. This was not reversible error.
Issue 4: Expert Testimony on Delayed Disclosure
The Commonwealth called Dr. Stephanie Block, an expert in developmental psychology focusing on child abuse, trauma memory, and children’s disclosure patterns. She testified that children who are sexually abused often delay disclosing and may initially reveal only part of the abuse, and she explained the psychological mechanisms underlying those patterns11-059-25.
Andre argued that Dr. Block was unqualified, that her testimony was unreliable, and that it was improper because she knew nothing about the facts of this specific case.
The Appeals Court rejected these arguments:
Qualifications: Dr. Block was an associate professor of psychology at UMass Lowell, held a Ph.D. from UC Davis, specialized in child trauma and abuse disclosure, and had testified as an expert about 100 times. This easily met the standard under Commonwealth v. Frangipane, 433 Mass. 527 (2001)11-059-25.
Lack of case-specific knowledge: Because she testified only about general principles and not about the complainant specifically, her lack of knowledge of this case was immaterial (Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 480 Mass. 299 (2018)).
Reliability: She described her use of anonymous surveys, statistical analysis, and peer-reviewed publications—sufficient for the trial judge to find her testimony reliable (Commonwealth v. Hinds, 487 Mass. 212 (2021)).
Key Takeaways for Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers
The Andre decision underscores several critical points for defense counsel:
1. Due Process Challenges to Pre-Indictment Delay Are Hard to Win
Massachusetts courts set a high bar: defendants must show actual, concrete prejudice and intentional or reckless government delay. Speculation about lost records or faded memories is not enough. And if the delay resulted from the complainant or family refusing to cooperate, that does not count against the Commonwealth.
2. Raise and Preserve Speedy Trial Claims Early
If you intend to argue post-indictment delay, you must build a record: track which delays were caused by the Commonwealth versus defense, document efforts to assert the right, and show specific prejudice. Otherwise the claim will be deemed waived or unsupported.
3. Evidence of Uncharged Acts May Come In
Trial judges have broad discretion to admit evidence of uncharged sexual acts to show a pattern or the relationship’s nature. Defense counsel must prepare to counteract this with limiting instructions, motions in limine, and strategic cross-examination.
4. Expert Testimony on Delayed Disclosure Is Routine and Often Permitted
Massachusetts appellate courts consistently uphold the admission of expert testimony explaining why children delay or partially disclose sexual abuse. Attacks on qualifications and reliability rarely succeed unless the expert opines directly on the complainant’s credibility (which was avoided here).
Implications for Clients Facing Historic Allegations
For individuals accused of historic sexual offenses in Massachusetts, Andre is sobering. It shows that:
The abolition of the statute of limitations in 2006 means decades-old allegations can still be prosecuted, if reported within the 27-year corroboration window.
The courts will not dismiss old cases simply because physical evidence and records are gone.
Even long pre-indictment delays often will not bar prosecution unless the defendant can prove both actual prejudice and government misconduct.
This means that mounting a vigorous defense is essential, even when the allegations are decades old. Defense counsel must scour the record for any remaining documentation, interview surviving witnesses, and develop a coherent trial strategy to undermine credibility and create reasonable doubt.
Our Firm’s Perspective: Protecting the Rights of the Accused
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, our Brockton-based criminal defense lawyers have defended numerous clients against serious sexual offense charges across Massachusetts.
We understand how terrifying and isolating it can feel to face allegations from decades ago—especially when exculpatory evidence has been lost to time. We fight to ensure our clients are not convicted based on unreliable or uncorroborated accusations.
Our team is experienced in:
Litigating motions to dismiss for unconstitutional pre-indictment delay
Challenging the admissibility of uncharged conduct evidence
Cross-examining Commonwealth experts on delayed disclosure
Conducting trauma-informed but rigorous cross-examination of complaining witnesses
Crafting defense strategies when physical evidence no longer exists
The Andre decision makes clear that Massachusetts prosecutors are willing and able to pursue historic sexual offense charges. Having skilled counsel from the outset is critical.
Conclusion
The Appeals Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Edgar Andre reaffirms the Commonwealth’s ability to prosecute decades-old child sexual assault allegations and signals the judiciary’s continued resistance to dismissing cases based solely on the passage of time.
While due process and speedy trial rights remain essential safeguards, they are not automatic shields against prosecution after long delays. Defense counsel must be proactive, strategic, and meticulous to protect clients’ rights in these emotionally charged, high-stakes cases.
If you or someone you love is facing historic sexual assault charges in Massachusetts, contact our experienced Boston and Brockton criminal defense team at Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP today. We will fight tirelessly to protect your rights, your reputation, and your future.