Commonwealth v. Riding
68 A.3d 990
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Riding allegedly purchased a handgun for Pugh on February 6, 2005 and made a false statement in connection with the purchase.
- Original statute of limitations for 6111(g)(4) expired February 6, 2007; gun recovered November 19, 2006 from Muhammed.
- 2008 amendment to 5552 extended base period to five years with possible additional eight years for discovery.
- Riding was arrested March 18, 2010 and charged with 6111(g)(4) among other offenses; trial court dismissed the charge as time‑barred.
- En banc Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, determining the limitations period did not expire and the charge should be reinstated for trial.
- Court analyzes whether pre‑2008 or post‑2008 limitations apply by applying 1 Pa.C.S. § 1975 and related case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 amendment revived or extended the time bar for 6111(g)(4). | Commonwealth argues amendment applies and preserves timely prosecution. | Riding argues the pre‑2008 period expired and amendment cannot revive it. | Amendment can extend/revive under § 5552; prosecution within amended period permissible. |
| Whether fraud is a material element for the purposes of the § 5552(c)(1) exception. | Commonwealth asserts fraud element exists in 6111(g)(4) as a material element. | Riding asserts fraud is not an element of 6111(g)(4) and thus no exception. | Fraud is a material element of the offense, so § 5552(c)(1) exception applies. |
| Whether § 5552, as it existed in 2005, mandated a five‑year base with discovery extension that could extend to 2018. | Commonwealth contends base five years plus discovery extension applicable. | Riding contends the pre‑2008 structure limits discovery and revival. | Base five years with up to eight years extension applies; effective maximum is February 6, 2018. |
| Whether the prior statute of limitations expired functionally before the 2008 amendment. | Commonwealth contends the limitation period was not exhausted before amendment. | Riding maintains the period expired before amendment. | The pre‑amendment period did not end the case; amendment applies to revive/prolong the period. |
| Whether the Commonwealth’s charging date (March 18, 2010) was within the revived period. | Charging within the amended period remains timely. | Timeliness challenged if period had expired. | Charging occurred within the applicable extended period; charge not time‑barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 439 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 1982) (fraud extension not applicable when no false representation is required)
- Commonwealth v. Eackles, 428 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 1981) (fraud extension not applicable where false representation not required)
- Commonwealth v. Adebaike, 846 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 2004) (definition of fraud used for tolling discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Harvey, 542 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. 1988) (interpretation of new vs old statutes of limitations; accrual principle)
- Commonwealth v. Russell, 938 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2007) (questions of law review standard on statute of limitations)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (de novo review for questions of law)