Pa. Supreme Court to take appeal in lawsuit over concealed murder weapon

A Verona woman whose son was killed more than four years ago believes she is entitled to recover damages from the killer’s parents and their marriage counselor, who she claims purposely concealed the murder weapon.

Although two lower courts have ruled against T. Lee Rouse in her lawsuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said this week it will take up the case.

It’s an issue of first impression, her attorney wrote in his petition for review.

The question the court must answer: Are the defendants liable for damages under the “Interference with Dead Bodies” tort in Pennsylvania law even though they never touched Christian Moore-Rouse’s body?

Moore-Rouse, 22, was killed on Dec. 21, 2019, by Adam Rosenberg, who is serving life in prison.

The two had been friends, and that day, Rosenberg invited Moore-Rouse to his Fox Chapel home. Police said Rosenberg shot his friend in the back of the head, dragged his body down the driveway and hid it a few feet off the road where it wasn’t discovered until March 3, 2020.

During the investigation into the case, police learned that Rosenberg’s parents, Kimberly and Howard Rosenberg, came upon the gun after the slaying and took it to their marriage counselor, Martha Laux.

She, in turn, took the gun to Allegheny County Police on Jan. 20, 2020, and claimed to have found it on a trail in North Park while walking her dog.

No charges were ever filed for making false report to police.

But T. Lee Rouse filed a lawsuit in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court alleging that the actions of the Rosenbergs and Laux delayed the police investigation and the discovery of her son’s body.

That, in turn, prevented her from being able to bury him properly and caused severe emotional distress, wrote her attorney Mark Homyak.

“Proper disposition of the remains of a deceased family member has been a rite universally followed by humans, of whatever customs, religious or spiritual beliefs to which they may have ascribed, from time immemorial,” Homyak wrote in his petition for review.

He called interference with those rites “fundamentally repulsive,” and said they are subject to damages in Pennsylvania.

However, both the trial court and Pennsylvania Superior Court found that Rouse’s claim fails because neither the Rosenbergs nor Laux ever touched Moore-Rouse’s body, a requirement to recover damages.

“Here, … there is no allegation that defendants helped Adam hide Christian’s body in the wooded public park near the Rosenbergs’ residence. In fact, there is no allegation that defendants ever even learned the location of Christian’s body,” the Superior Court wrote in its May 15 opinion.

But Rouse did not allege the defendants assisted in hiding her son’s body.

“At most, Rouse’s complaint alleges that the Rosenbergs somehow came into possession of the murder weapon and either knew or suspected that Adam was responsible for Christian’s disappearance, and that they used their marriage counselor to turn the murder weapon into the police under a false explanation,” the Superior Court continued. “While these facts might not paint defendants in a positive light, those facts also do not show that they did anything to conceal the location of a murder victim’s body or thwart the police from discovering it, let alone even know where it was located.”

But in filing the petition to the state Supreme Court, Homyak said that the case is outrageous and deserves review.

Attorneys for the Rosenbergs and Laux wrote to the court urging it not to take the case.

“Rouse makes no allegation that Kimberly and Howard Rosenberg (‘the Rosenbergs’) were in any way involved with the shooting, ever handled Christian’s body following his death, or had any knowledge as to the body’s location,” wrote attorney J. Andrew Salemme. “They are not alleged to have moved the body, handled it or to have had any physical contact with it whatsoever. Nor are they alleged to have had custody or control over the body, or even access to it.”

There is no compelling issue that warrants review, they said.

“Review is only appropriate if the legal issue is of great significance to the general public,” Salemme wrote.