because sometimes damages take longer to pop up. they attempt to set the SoL’s based on: 1) how likely is it that you are able to become aware of further (sorry, this was badly written here) breach/damage within the limitations period and 2) the type of evidence that characterizes the transaction also forms the quantum of evidence in the lawsuit; you’ll notice a correlation in the length of the limitations period to the statute of fraud requirements necessitating a written instrument for a given transaction 3) if you’re given long enough, the amount of damages you suffer decreases (mainly only applicable to civil actions)
Because of the quality of the evidence involved. The only evidence of assault might be bruises. The only evidence of an oral contract might be the testimony (and hence memories) of a few individuals. In the case of a written contract, obviously you’ve got much more durable evidence, so it’s reasonable to conclude that the statute of limitations should run for longer.
SOL for breach of written contract is five years in Florida, for the record.
Which apparently has happened. I believe it’s been done in several rape or murder cases; and Law & Order, who love to rework some of the weirder cases and make them TV Shows, also used this tactic…
There is some evidence from a crime, like DNA - the prosecutor issues a John Doe warrant with the identification “We are looking for the individual who matches this DNA”. Then when they find him, they can charge him even if the statute of limitations has run out, because he was originally charged as John Doe before the SoL ran out. The argument was that even if they did not know the perp’s real name, the DNA was sufficient to identify that one individual. (So I suppose if you have an identical twin, the SoL would still apply?)
you’ll note that your second sentence suggested these were murder or rape cases - (not sure on rape) but as has been explained, murder cases don’t have SOLs. Besides, indicting a John Doe doesn’t really implicate the concern I had; actually indicting a named individual and sitting on the prosecution for years while the state collects evidence and subjects the accused to legal bills and emotional/psychic costs.
Betty and John are dating, and Betty asks John to loan her his mother’s diamond earrnigs. John does, but insists it is a loan. They have a fight over the earrings when John picks them up while visiting her. Betty and John break up, and Betty is furious. She threatens to tell the police that John beat her, and stole her jewelry. John tells her that she has no case, her roommate knows this to be untrue, and she has no injuries. Betty nurses her grudge.
Sixteen years later, John decides to run for Mayor. Betty is delighted. She can file charges for battery, and robbery. So what if there is no conviction?
See any need for a statute of limitations here?
Tris
I know I read this somewhere, on the Straight Dope or “How things work” or something similar… Apparently people used to believe that the entire human body eventually replaced itself, you grew new skin, hair, etc, and after about 7 years you had enough of your organs, tissues, etc, replaced that you would actually be a whole different person. Thus the statute of limitations was set to 7 years for most crimes. Of course we now know your entire body isn’t replaced, 7 years or not, but there are good reasons for the statutes. I’d be interested to know if anyone else remembers this and if it was in fact the original basis for the statute of limitations.
Edit: I’m pretty sure Cecil mentioned it during an article, but I can’t remember which one. All I remember was him talking about the belief in the “your entire body is replaced every 7 years”, then mentioning, as an aside, “this is the basis for the 7 year statute of limitations on many crimes”, or something similar.
**Rumor_Watkins **, I have looked at criminal SoL waiver issues in Illinois, and it looks pretty clear that it has to be raised in proper time. By Illinois reasoning, only void judgments can be challenged at any time, and void judgments occur only when the the court lacks jurisdiction. SoL is not considered jurisdictional.
Bricker, unintentional forfeiture of an SoL defense would surely lead to a good post-conviction claim for ineffective assistance of counsel–of course, by then, the defendant usually doesn’t have a lawyer and has a pretty good chance of screwing the issue up. On the other hand, there may be good reasons to deliberately waive an SoL defense. For instance, waiving the defense might be part of the set up for a favorable plea agreement.
I don’t know if this is the case in California, but in Canada (outside Quebec) limitation periods in civil matters were created piecemeal, as part of individual statutes dealing, say with contracts, and another dealing with property, and so on. Then they eventually got amalgamated into a single statute, but without much attempt at rationalization.
It’s only recently that jurisdictions in Canada have been moving towards a single short limitation period (e.g. - two years) with a discovery rule, coupled with a longer ultimate limitation period (e.g - 15 years) that does not have the discovery rule.
In Norway statutes of limitation are based on the maximum sentence for a crime:
2 years for a crime with maximum sentence 1 year.
5 years for a maximum sentence of 4 years.
10 for 10.
15 for 15.
25 for 21, which is the maximum sentence for any crime. (Not counting so called “preventative detention” for high risk repeaters.)
There’s no way this factors in to the need for statutes of limitation.
Sorry, didn’t mean to harp. I see others had already commented on that point.
“statue of repose”
Like this one?
Yes, just like that.