Commonwealth v. Libengood
152 A.3d 1057
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- In 2014 Jeffrey P. Libengood repeatedly sexually abused a minor, S.D.; in June 2015 he was charged with multiple sexual-offense counts including rape of a child and aggregated indecent assault.
- The Commonwealth’s bill of particulars (filed July 23, 2015) stated the offenses occurred "between January 1, 2014 and December 20, 2014," without specific dates.
- Libengood requested more specific dates, then filed a motion in limine on October 28, 2015 seeking to bar S.D.’s testimony as inadequate particulars; the trial court denied the motion the same day.
- A jury convicted Libengood on multiple counts on October 29, 2015; the court imposed a 10–20 year sentence for rape of a child, with other sentences concurrent.
- Libengood filed post-sentence motions (denied), then appealed, raising: (1) that the bill of particulars was insufficient and the witness should have been barred, and (2) that his sentence was affected by the constitutionality of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/timeliness of bill of particulars; motion to bar victim testimony | Commonwealth: bill of particulars was adequate and procedurally complied with; trial court could deny late motion | Libengood: Commonwealth’s one-year time window was insufficient; counsel needed specific dates to prepare/defend; witness testimony should be barred | Denied. Court held Libengood waived relief by filing his Rule 572(C) motion more than five days after the bill; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying as untimely |
| Legality of sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 (mandatory minimum for child rape) | Libengood: sentence unlawful if imposed under § 9718 because Wolfe declared § 9718 unconstitutional | Commonwealth: court’s imposition of 10–20 years was lawful based on sentencing factors rather than application of § 9718 mandatory minimum | Denied. Court found trial court explicitly did not rely on § 9718; it exercised sentencing discretion under § 9721(b) and imposed the same range; sentence is legal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (held Section 9718 facially unconstitutional and void)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 641 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Super. 1994) (after an original bill of particulars, defendant must move for further particulars within five days)
- Commonwealth v. Albanesi, 338 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 1975) (failure to file timely motion for particulars may preclude later relief)
- Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2011) (untimely omnibus pretrial motions result in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Mercado, 649 A.2d 946 (Pa. Super. 1994) (standard of review for Rule 572 decisions is abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Aikens, 139 A.3d 244 (Pa. Super. 2016) (questions of sentence legality are reviewed de novo)