No, it's not too late to charge her. The case can move forward for two main reasons. First, the crime of 'failure to report' is ongoing; it doesn't end until a report is made, so the two-year clock never really started. Second, when she told her players to keep quiet, she was trying to hide what happened, which legally pauses the clock, giving the prosecutors more time.

No, the case can move forward, but only for one reason: she tried to cover it up by telling the players to be quiet. The judge disagreed that failing to report is an 'ongoing' crime, believing time limits on crimes are important. More importantly, this judge believed the case should be thrown out anyway because what Lebo saw wasn't enough to make her 'feel certain' that a crime was happening, so she didn't actually have a legal duty to report anything.

Yes, Coach Lebo can still be charged because not reporting abuse is an ongoing crime. The time limit doesn't apply. Also, because Coach Lebo told her players not to talk about what happened, she can't use the time limit as an excuse. The charges and information from the hearing explain enough details for Coach Lebo to defend herself. She was supposed to report if she had any reason to think K.T. was being abused, not just if she knew for sure.

I agree that Coach Lebo can be charged because she tried to hide what was going on, so the time limit didn't run out. But I don't think not reporting abuse should always be treated as an ongoing crime with no time limit. I also think the court should have dropped the charges because the things Coach Lebo knew about didn't clearly show Ashcraft was doing something illegal with K.T. But the information Coach Lebo got about the charges should be clear enough for her to defend herself.

"The purpose of a `charging information is to provide a defendant with notice of the crime of which he is charged so that he is able to prepare a defense.'"

The trial court denied York's motion to dismiss, and we generally review that denial for an abuse of discretion.

The failure to report statute does not require that an individual have actual knowledge of child abuse or neglect. Rather, a duty to report is imposed on an individual who merely has `reason to believe'a child is the victim of such a crime

Dvorak, 78 NE 3d at 27. "Questions of fact to be decided at trial or facts constituting a defense are not properly raised by a motion to dismiss." Id

—the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that violation of Indiana's mandatory reporter statute constituted a continuing offense for the purposes of the statute of limitations.

Based on the language of the statute, the Indiana court reasoned that "[a] n individual who has not been `relieved'of his duty to report must be considered to have a continuing duty to do so. "

"The court may, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss the indictment or information...[if it] does not state the offense with sufficient certainty." Ind. Code § 35-34-1-4 (a)(4).

"[T] he probable cause affidavit supporting the charging instrument may be taken into account in assessing whether a defendant has been apprised of the charges against him."

The doctrine of continuing offenses holds, "Where there is a continuing duty to do some act, the statute of limitations does not apply where some portion of the offense is within the period of limitations."

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the circumstances before it.

No. The prosecution is not barred by the statute of limitations because the failure to report child abuse is a continuing offense, meaning the limitations period does not begin to run as long as the duty remains unfulfilled. Alternatively, the State sufficiently alleged that Lebo concealed the offense by instructing players not to speak about the matter, which tolls the statute of limitations. The court reasoned that treating the failure to report as a continuing offense aligns with the statute's purpose of protecting children from 'further abuse or neglect.' To hold otherwise would mean the duty to report expires on the first day a 'reason to believe' arises, undermining child safety. The court also found that the State's allegations of concealment—that Lebo told players not to talk and that the State couldn't have discovered the evidence earlier through due diligence—were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, as the ultimate truth of those allegations is a question of fact for trial.

No. The judge agrees that the prosecution is not barred by the statute of limitations, but solely on the grounds that Lebo's concealment tolled the limitations period. However, the judge dissents from the majority's holding that failure to report is a continuing offense and further dissents from the decision to let the case proceed at all. The judge argued that statutes of limitation are favored and that the legislature did not clearly express an intent to make failure to report a continuing offense; penal statutes must be construed strictly against the State. The judge further dissented on the merits, arguing that the facts known to Lebo (inappropriate touching, rumors of a 'boyfriend' relationship) were not sufficient to give her 'reason to believe' child abuse was occurring as defined by statute. Therefore, her duty to report was never triggered, and the trial court should have granted her motion to dismiss.

Yes, the charges against Lebo are not barred by the statute of limitations because failure to report is a continuing offense to which the statute of limitations does not apply. Additionally, Lebo's alleged instruction to her players not to discuss Ashcraft's conduct with their parents was sufficient to invoke the concealment exception to the statute of limitations. The charging informations, together with testimony from the probable cause hearing, provide sufficiently specific facts for Lebo to prepare her defense. I believe the failure to report statute imposes a duty to report based on 'reason to believe' a child is a victim of abuse, not actual knowledge.

I concur in part with the majority's decision that the statute of limitations had not run due to Lebo's concealment. However, I dissent in part because I do not agree with characterizing the failure to report child abuse or neglect as a continuing offense. I believe the trial court erred in denying Lebo's motion to dismiss because the facts known to Lebo would not cause an individual of similar background and training to believe that Ashcraft was engaging in illegal sexual activity with K.T. The charging information and probable cause affidavit should be sufficient to inform Lebo of the charges against her.

Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot