ShareThis Page

Teenagers accused in Interstate 80 rock-throwing incident seek to move case to juvenile court

| Sunday, Feb. 1, 2015, 9:42 p.m.

Three of four teenagers charged in connection with a rock dropped onto a car on a central Pennsylvania highway, severely injuring the motorist, are asking to have their cases moved to juvenile court.

Attorneys for Dylan Lahr, Keefer McGee and Tyler Porter filed motions in Union County Court in Lewisburg, asking that the case be moved to juvenile court, according to a published report.

All were 17 on July 10 when the large rock smashed through the windshield of a car on Interstate 80, striking 52-year-old Sharon Budd, a Uniontown, Ohio, teacher, in the face.

The three, along with 19-year-old Brett Lahr — whose attorney wants charges dismissed, arguing that the state lacks evidence to support them — are charged with aggravated assault, conspiracy, propulsion of a missile into a vehicle and other counts.

A hearing on the motions and others is set for April 30.

Dylan Lahr's attorney filed a motion to move the trial or select jurors from another county, saying pre-trial publicity that “continues to be extreme” has made seating an impartial jury from the county impossible.

McGee's motion seeking to move his case to juvenile court cites not only his age but his cooperation with prosecutors in testifying in a preliminary hearing for co-defendant Brett Lahr last summer. McGee said the four intended to do some damage during a night of mayhem but did not anticipate their actions would seriously harm anyone. He said they laughed as they drove away after hearing the rock hit a vehicle.

Defense attorneys are seeking to have some evidence in the case tossed out, and Porter's attorney is challenging the classification of the rock as a “deadly weapon.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me