Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

liabilitystatutetrialmisdemeanorstatute of limitationsduty of care
defendantliabilitystatuteappealmisdemeanorstatute of limitationsduty of careappellant

Related Cases

Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54, 250 N.E.2d 656, 35 A.L.R.3d 487
View Case »
People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171, 729 P.2d 839, 233 Cal.Rptr. 404
View Case »
Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 23 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1473, 24 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1201, 1977-2 Trade Cases P 61,591, 1978-1 Trade Cases P 61,879
View Case »
Hunydee v. U.S., 355 F.2d 183, 17 A.F.T.R.2d 262, 66-1 USTC P 9137
View Case »
McLouth Steel Corp. v. Mesta Mach. Co., 214 F.2d 608
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Commonwealth v. Spanier, 192 A.3d 141, 358 Ed. Law Rep. 522, 2018 PA Super 184

Facts

Graham B. Spanier served as the President of Pennsylvania State University from 1995 to 2011. The charges against him stemmed from his response to allegations of sexual misconduct against Gerald Sandusky, a former football coach. In 1998, Spanier was informed of allegations involving Sandusky and a young boy, but no action was taken. In 2001, Spanier was made aware of a more recent incident involving Sandusky and a graduate assistant, yet he failed to report the allegations to authorities, leading to further abuse of minors. Spanier was ultimately charged and convicted of EWOC.

Appellant is the former President of the Pennsylvania State University (“PSU”), and served in that capacity from 1995 through 2011. The charges against him arise from his response to allegations of sexual misconduct against Gerald “Jerry” A. Sandusky, who was the defensive coordinator for the Penn State football team and founder of a non-profit charity for troubled youth, The Second Mile (“TSM”).

Issue

Did the trial court err in not entering a judgment of acquittal based on the statute of limitations and the lack of a duty of care owed by Spanier to the minor victim?

The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that this prosecution, which was commenced on November 1, 2012, was brought within the two-year statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of children.

Rule

The statute of limitations for prosecuting endangering the welfare of children (EWOC) is generally two years, but exceptions apply for sexual offenses against minors. A person supervising the welfare of a child can be held liable for endangering that welfare even if they do not have direct contact with the child.

Section 5552 creates exceptions to the two-year statute otherwise made generally applicable under 5552(a): (a) General rule.— Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a prosecution for an offense must be commenced within two years after it is committed.

Analysis

The court determined that Spanier was on notice of his potential liability for misdemeanor EWOC and that the prosecution was timely under the statute of limitations. The court also found that Spanier, as university president, had a duty of care to the minor victim, as he was aware of the allegations and failed to take appropriate action. The court emphasized that supervision of a child's welfare can be indirect and does not require personal interaction with the child.

The jury, however, found no course of conduct and therefore found Appellant guilty of the lesser-included misdemeanor offense under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(b)(1)(i).

Conclusion

The Superior Court affirmed Spanier's conviction for EWOC, concluding that he had a duty of care to the minor victim and that the prosecution was not barred by the statute of limitations.

This timely appeal followed. Appellant raises the following questions for our review:

Who won?

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case, as the court upheld Spanier's conviction based on the evidence of his failure to act on known allegations of abuse.

The Superior Court, No. 1093 MDA 2017, Stabile, J., held that: 1 defendant had notice of his potential liability for lesser-included misdemeanor offense and exceptions to two-year limitations period, and 2 defendant owed a duty of care to minor victim.

You must be