Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 567
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Lebo, LaPorte High School varsity volleyball coach, was charged with two counts of failure to report child abuse or neglect.
- The charges stem from Lebo’s alleged failure to report Ashcraft’s conduct with KT, a minor, during 2007–2008 and alleged instructions to players not to discuss it.
- Investigation revealed Lebo documented concerns in Ashcraft’s personnel file and intervened to stop inappropriate behavior, but she did not report to authorities.
- Statute of limitations issue: prosecution argued tolling by concealment and a continuing offense; Lebo argued charges were time-barred.
- Probable cause hearing testimony supported concealment allegations; the information alleged concealment and a delayed discovery of evidence to file charges.
- Trial court denied Lebo’s motion to dismiss; appellate court affirmed, holding concealment tolls limitations or, alternatively, failure to report may be a continuing offense, and the informations were sufficiently specific.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does concealment toll the statute of limitations | Lebo argues concealment tolling applies | Lebo asserts concealment facts are insufficient to toll | Yes, concealment tolls the period |
| Is failure to report a continuing offense | State contends continuing offense applies | Lebo disputes continuing offense characterization | Yes, continuing offense theory applicable |
| Are the charging informations sufficiently specific | Informations suffice with statute language and supportive testimony | Lebo argues lack of specificity to prepare a defense | Informations sufficiently specific |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (statute of limitations tolling and public policy)
- Reeves v. State, 938 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (concealment exception requires specific allegations)
- Willner v. State, 602 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 1992) (concealment framework for tolling)
- DeHart v. State, 471 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (continuing offenses doctrine)
- Wright v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 521 (Cal. 1997) (continuing duty concept in crimes of omission)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1970) (continuing offense concept in federal context)
- State v. Laker, 939 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (adequacy of information in charging instrument)
- Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2000) (notice and sufficiency standards for indictments)