I am sure this is addressed in the codes of most laws but I have not found it online.
Suppose hypothetically that the statute of limitations for, say, assault and battery is 5 years, but a crime victim is put into a coma for 6 years due to having being assaulted+battered. The victim, upon awaking, is not able to press charges against his assailant due to the statute of limitations having expired. Is there a legal remedy for this scenario?
The remedy is that the victim’s cooperation is not required for prosecution of felony. (See also: murder.)
Victims don’t press charges. The prosecutor does. This can be done with or without the victims cooperation.
Right, but, suppose that the victim was the only one who could identify the attacker - that without the victim’s cooperation the prosecution couldn’t work. Could the court make an exception in this case?
(Of course, someone who has been in a coma for 6 years isn’t likely to have the clearest of memories, but a hypothetical is a hypothetical.)
The victim doesn’t press charges; the DA/county prosecutor/state’s attorney/whatever does. On TV you often hear police ask victims if they want to press charges. What they really should say is “Do you want to pursue the matter?” and in real life, they probably do say something like that.
In major crimes, victims don’t actually have a choice. They have a choice as to whether to submit to certain types of evidence collecting, like rape kits, but if you get raped by what appears to be a serial rapist, who already has other victims, you aren’t going to be asked whether you want to pursue the matter. The police want this guy, and while they can’t force you to submit to a rape kit, they can search the area where you were raped, even if it was your car or your apartment.
It’s really just very petty crimes where the victim may be asked if he or she wants to go through the trouble of making a report. Sometimes if the victim is going to make an insurance claim, the answer has to be yes, but sometimes lost time from work to give a deposition, and so forth, are more than what was lost to a petty theft, and it can feel like throwing good money after bad, so the answer is no.
Since you don’t know if the victim is ever going to come out of the coma, probably no.
I am not a lawyer but i think the phrase you are looking for might be
Equitable tolling?
Is there a statute of limitations for an assault that lands the victim into a coma for 6 years?
Is this even assault? … 6 year coma is more like attempted murder …
After a 6 year coma, would the victim’s testimony be allowed? … one typically doesn’t just snap out of a coma this long … we’re talking serious brain damage here …
I think this goes into the cold case file and it’s tossed after a hundred years …
That’s a good point. I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations for attempted murder.
The statute of limitations on a civil suit would most likely be tolled (would not run) because of the plaintiff’s incapacity. Example here (see sec. A.2.b).
No exception needed. Once charges have been filed, the statute of limitations is tolled until the charges are dismissed, or a conviction entered. The problem here is the speedy trial requirement, not the statute of limitations. I leave it to others with more knowledge of the criminal justice system to explain whether a case can be continued for six years in order to secure the testimony of a critical witness.
Thanks for the replies. I realize it is my fault for not wording right.
I do not mean the victim goes into a coma, but charges were filed the day he was wounded. Rather, I mean, the victim goes into coma, the attacker is unidentified for 6 years, the victim awakes, but by then the 5-year statute has expired, and THEN charges cannot be filed.
I’m pulling this from a law firm’s (poorly written) website, rather than from statute. And this only applies to California. But I believe it addresses your question in conjunction with prior responses related to tolling:
"In certain instances California courts will toll a statute (halt the statutory deadline for a period of time). Some common situations where the court will permit a tolling of the statutory period includes.
[ul]
[li]Mental Incapacitation following the injury[/li][li]The injured party is a minor – the statute of limitations will be tolled and will not begin to run until the victims 18th birthday[/li][li]Physical Incapacitation following the injury[/li][li]The injury did not manifest itself until a later time after the act of abuse, battery, or assault took place – under these circumstances the statute of limitations will run from the date where the injured party knew or should have known of the injury"[/li][/ul]
All of the bolding is mine.
So, upon finding victim unconscious from a beating (at least, after it was clear that they’re in a coma), the DA would file charges against “unknown assailant(s)” (or however local law requires it to be plead) and at the same time ask for the SOL to be tolled until the victim awakes?
I have never heard of such a thing. Kind of defeats the purpose of the Statute of Limitations.
A civil suit is a private suit. After the victim awakes, he or she would file a lawsuit against the assailant seeking damages for assault. If the assailant/defendant tried to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that the SOL had run, the victim/plaintiff would oppose dismissal by arguing that the SOL was tolled during his or her coma.
If the victim doesn’t know who the assailant is, he or she cannot file a civil suit, but that is potentially another basis for tolling the civil SOL, as long as the victim undertakes some sort of reasonable efforts to figure out who it is.
I don’t think that’s the purpose of the Statute of Limitations … we really don’t want preps standing in front of the microphones bragging about what he done did get away with … I’m just guessing here but I think the purpose is to prevent prosecutorial misconduct … not in the case the OP presents, but if the prosecutor knew who did the crime, there can be quite a bit of blackmail handed out … “Help unload this boat full of cocaine or I’ll file attempted murder charges against you” … of course this doesn’t happen, we have the Statute of Limitations … the prep will be able to stand in front of the microphones laying out the case that the prosecutor is a major drug kingpin …
The Statute of Limitations is designed to give potential defendants (for most crimes) immunity from prosecution after the passage of a specific number of years. The rationale is that it would be unfair to make someone defend themselves many years after an alleged crime, when evidence and memories would have been lost or degraded. I have never heard it justified as a check on prosectorial misconduct.
They are talking about civil actions based on assault or battery, though, not criminal proceedings.
Agreed. On the criminal side, there can also be tolling that varies by state. This site provides a brief breakdown of each state’s statute and when that would toll.
Some states have no limitation for felony crimes. Others say that the statute is tolled while the suspect is “fleeing justice,” and it’s unclear to me if simply not turning one’s self in would fall into that category, or if that only applies to a suspect who is identified but not yet captured. And then there are states like Arizona, which says that “[t]he statutory clock does not run when the suspect is a fugitive from the law or when the identity of a criminal suspect is unknown” (emphasis added). I didn’t see in my quick review whether any other states’ tolling requirements referenced the suspect’s identity.