How can these catholic priests get arrested for molestation, etc. when they were committed 20 years ago? My understanding was murder was the only crime that had no limit on prosecution.
My (retired) attorney friend tells me that the statute of limitations in California begins to apply when authorities know, or should have known using reasonable diligence, that crime has been committed, not when the crime was actually committed.
So the statute doesn’t seem to set a hard and fast time limit. Rather, it might depend on what a court considers to be “reasonable dilligence” in law enforcement. This might apply to the molestation cases. The victims, in many cases didn’t go to the authorities and neither did the Catholic Church officials. I think that an investigation of possible crimes by law enforcement official is rare in the absence of a specific complaint or an overt act witnessed by one of them.
Any comments of other California attorneys?
Non-California attorney checking in. First off, limitations periods vary widely from state to state, so there’s no good way to answer the question without reference to a specific jurisdiction. Second, I seem to recall that a number of states have adopted statutes of limitations for child molestation that begin to run only once the victim reaches adulthood. That would obviously extend the period by more than a few years, and limitations is already probably pretty long for child rape.
I have never heard of a limitations period for a criminal act beginning to run only when the authorities learn or should have learned of the crime. In fact, I believe that is most likely incorrect altogether. Limitations on civil suits often run that way, under the theory that you can’t be expected to sue until you know you’ve been defrauded or injured or whatever. But I don’t think there is any comparable “discovery” rule for limitations in criminal law. That’s off the top of my head, however, so I could be wrong.
You’re probably right about California too. My retired attorney friend specialized in civil cases and might never have had any contact with a criminal case where the statute of limitation was a factor.
This site http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=35158027988+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve contains information about the California statute of limitations from the penal code.
Sect. 803 contains the rules about discovery as regards the statute of limitations and there are a bunch of them pertaining to different penal code section. The one that covers our present question is: “(f) (1) Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described in this chapter, a criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the date of a report to a responsible adult or agency by a child under 18 years of age that the child is a victim of a crime [bolding added] described in Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, 288.5, 289, or 289.5.”
A “responsible adult” is defined in the code and the above applies only after the normal time limit has expired and to a repeat offender against the same victim.
I didn’t look up any case law about this, and probably wouldn’t have got a lot out of if I had. But it would seem that California does have a “discovery” provision in the statute. In this state, at least, the time of commission of the crime isn’t necessarily the controlling factor. When the child reported the crime to someone who was duty bound to report to the authorities also counts if the normal time has expired.
California lawyer -
Direct from the Penal Code:
CPC s288(a) - Lewd or lacsivious act on a child under 14; punishment is 2, 6, or 8 years in prison.
CPC s800 - The Statute of Lims for any crime punishable by 8 or more years is within 6 years of the commission of the offense.
CPC s803(f)(1) only revives old acts committed when there is an act that is within s800. That is, if the defendant committed one act 9 years ago, then again 5 years ago, both acts are chargeable. [see CPC s803(f)(2)(B)]
What the OP really wants is CPC s803(g)(1):
“Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described in this chapter, a criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the date of a report to a responsible adult or agency by a person of any age alleging that he or she, while under the age of 18 years, was the victim of a crime in Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, 288.5, 289, or 289.5.”
CPC s803(g)(2)(B) limits the above to crimes involving “substantial sexual conduct, as described in subd. (b) of 1203.066, excluding masturbation that is not mutual, and there is independent evidence that clearly and convincingly corroborates the victim’s allegation.”
CPC s1203.066 - basically, penetration of the victim by the offender, or masturbation.
The Cal. Evidence Code allows prior acts that show a common plan or method of commission. So testimony by other victims would be admissible, and could fulfill CPC s803(g)(2)(B).
Bottom line: For this crime only, the Statute of Limitations starts running when a Law Enforcement Agency finds out, not merely any person. So it’s 6 years after commission of the crime, or 1 year after being reported to a Law Enforcement Agency by the victim.