Commonwealth v. Spanier
192 A.3d 141
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Graham B. Spanier, former Penn State president (1995–2011), was tried for endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC) based on PSU’s response to allegations that Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulted a minor in February 2001.
- PSU officials (Curley, Schultz) informed Spanier of a 1998 allegation and of McQueary’s 2001 report; Spanier approved a limited three-part plan that did not include contacting police or child-welfare authorities.
- Sandusky later abused additional boys; Sandusky was convicted in 2012 and Spanier was charged in November 2012 with multiple counts including EWOC.
- Pretrial rulings eliminated certain counts (perjury, obstruction, some conspiracies) after issues with privileged testimony; the EWOC misdemeanor and related charges proceeded to jury trial in March 2017.
- The jury convicted Spanier of misdemeanor EWOC (18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a)(1)) but found no course of conduct (avoiding the felony grading). He was sentenced to 4–12 months’ incarceration plus probation; Spanier appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Spanier's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EWOC prosecution was time‑barred | § 5552(c)(3) (sexual‑offense exception) applies to § 4304; complaint and presentment provided notice; amended 2007 statute extended filing to victim’s 50th birthday so prosecution in 2012 was timely | Only evidence was 2001 conduct; jury rejected course‑of‑conduct theory relied on at trial so prosecution is untimely under two‑year rule | Timely: misdemeanor EWOC was charged and § 5552(c)(3) clearly applied; defendant had notice from complaint/presentment; conviction stands |
| Whether Commonwealth waived reliance on § 5552(c)(3) / needed to give pretrial notice of limiting‑period theory | No waiver; § 5552(c)(3) set the limitations for the misdemeanor as evident from the charging documents; not a § 5554 tolling issue requiring extra factual notice | Commonwealth failed to invoke § 5552(c)(3) at trial and cannot rely on it post‑verdict (due process violation) | No due process violation: this is not a tolling claim under § 5554; no additional facts beyond the complaint were needed |
| Whether Spanier owed a legal duty of care/supervised the child’s welfare under § 4304 | Statute protects the child’s welfare; high‑level supervisors need not have direct contact—supervising institutional response suffices (Lynn) | Spanier did not personally supervise or have direct interaction with victims; not the point person for abuse allegations; thus no duty of care | Held Spanier supervised the child’s welfare by overseeing PSU’s response and therefore owed a duty of care; conviction supported |
| Whether jury instructions/statute version were erroneous (statute of limitations instruction; use of 2007 § 4304 language) | Using the 2007 statutory language and not giving a separate limitations charge was proper because complaint and evidence made § 5552(c)(3) applicable; Lynn controls construction | Requested 2001‑version instruction and an explicit statute‑of‑limitations instruction were required; standard EWOC jury instructions incomplete | No reversible error: 2007 wording did not misstate law here and no limitations instruction was required given the charging documents and unchallenged victim‑age evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lynn, 114 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2015) (EWOC protects supervision of a child’s welfare; supervisors may be liable even without direct contact)
- Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443 (Pa. Super. 2014) (lesser‑included offense doctrine: defendant on notice of lesser charge permitted conviction on that offense)
- Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931 (Pa. 2007) (notice requirements satisfied when charging documents allow a defendant to prepare defenses relevant to statutory limitations)