981 F.3d 213
3d Cir.2020Background:
- In Feb 2001 graduate assistant Mike McQueary witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a boy; Penn State officials Curley and Schultz informed President Graham Spanier and the group decided not to report to authorities.
- Sandusky continued abusing children; the legislature in 2007 amended the child endangerment statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 4304) and extended the statute of limitations (42 Pa.C.S. § 5552).
- Commonwealth charged Spanier in 2012 for conduct in 2001; at trial the judge instructed the jury using language that tracked the 2007 amendment (including "employs or supervises").
- Jury convicted Spanier of misdemeanor child endangerment (no "course of conduct" found); Spanier received a light sentence and appealed.
- District Court granted Spanier habeas relief, finding violations of the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses; Commonwealth appealed to the Third Circuit.
- Third Circuit reversed: held no ex post facto violation, no due process violation in applying Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent (Lynn) or in the statute-of-limitations ruling; habeas relief was therefore erroneously granted.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spanier) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether application of Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Lynn interpretation to pre‑2007 conduct violated due process (Bouie doctrine) | Lynn retroactively expanded the 1995 statute; Superior Court relied on post‑conduct change and thus denied fair warning | Lynn merely interpreted ambiguous statutory language already susceptible to broader reading; application was foreseeable | No due process violation; state courts reasonably applied Lynn and this was not "unexpected and indefensible" |
| Whether Ex Post Facto Clause barred conviction based on wording from amended statute | Use of post‑amendment statutory language effectively punished pre‑amendment conduct | Ex Post Facto applies only to legislatures; legislature did not make 2007 amendments retroactive | No ex post facto violation; amendments were not retroactive legislative action |
| Whether Spanier exhausted federal habeas remedies regarding the due process claim | Argues claim is exhausted because he raised federal due process arguments on direct appeal | Commonwealth contends he failed to cite controlling precedent (Rogers) and thus did not fairly present the federal claim | Claim was exhausted — petitioner presented the factual and legal substance of his federal due process claim to state courts |
| Whether jury instruction using 2007 language and failure to notify re: §5552(c)(3) violated due process / notice of defenses | Jury could have convicted on new statutory category (employs/supervises) and Commonwealth surprised defense by relying on amended SOL provision post‑verdict | Record shows Commonwealth’s theory was Spanier personally supervised child’s welfare; complaint and charged felony put Spanier on notice of lesser included misdemeanor and that §5552(c) would govern; §5552(c) is not a tolling provision requiring special notice | No due process violation: instruction, read with the record, did not likely lead jury to convict on the new 2007 category; statutory‑limitations application did not violate notice/ Due Process |
Key Cases Cited
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964) (due process forbids unforeseeable, retroactive judicial enlargement of criminal statutes)
- Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) (state court needs leeway to revise common‑law rules; retroactive changes are permissible unless "unexpected and indefensible")
- Metrish v. Lancaster, 569 U.S. 351 (2013) (habeas relief is not warranted where a state supreme court reasonably interprets a controlling statute even if lower courts had a contrary line)
- Commonwealth v. Lynn, 114 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2015) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court held pre‑2007 § 4304 covers persons who supervise a child’s welfare indirectly)
- Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179 (2009) (on habeas review, federal courts defer to state courts’ reasonable reading of trial record and jury instructions)