A.S., Jr. v. Kane, K.
145 A.3d 1167
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- In October 2014 A.S., Jr. filed a private criminal complaint alleging sexual offenses by Gerald Sandusky arising from conduct in June 1988.
- The Office of the Attorney General (Kane et al.) denied the complaint, concluding the statute of limitations had run.
- A.S. sought review in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506; the trial court reviewed the denial de novo because the denial was based on legal conclusions.
- The trial court initially held the amended statute of limitations (and public-employee exception) permitted prosecution, then, after the Commonwealth Court’s Sandusky decision, concluded Sandusky’s employment ended in 1999 and the claims were time-barred.
- This appeal presents whether applicable amendments and the public-employee exception to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5552 render A.S.’s 2014 private criminal complaint timely.
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s earlier order overruling the OAG, holding the complaint was time-barred under the governing statute(s) and amendments in effect before 2007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.S.’s private criminal complaint (filed 10/6/2014) is barred by the statute of limitations given successive amendments to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5552 and the public‑employee exception | A.S. argued he benefits from later amendments (including extension to age 50) and the public‑employee exception, so his claim was timely | OAG argued earlier limitations and the public‑employee extension produced an earlier run date (latest by Dec. 29, 2004), so the 2014 complaint is untimely | The court held the statute of limitations had expired before the 2007 amendment; the complaint was time‑barred and the OAG’s denial was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Private Complaint of Adams, 764 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2000) (private criminal complaint must plead prima facie case)
- In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005) (distinguishes legal vs. policy bases for prosecutor’s denial; de novo review when legal)
- Commonwealth v. Harvey, 542 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. 1988) (when a new limitations period takes effect before the prior period expires, elapsed time counts toward the new period; expired prior period is not revived)
- Sandusky v. Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement Bd., 127 A.3d 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (addressed Sandusky’s employment termination date for public‑employee exception calculations)