Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatutedue processstatute of limitationslegislative intent
defendantstatutedue processstatute of limitationslegislative intent

Related Cases

People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513
View Case »
People v. Escobar, 3 Cal.4th 740, 837 P.2d 1100, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 586
View Case »
U.S. v. Bancalari, 110 F.3d 1425, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2590, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4566
View Case »
Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124, 321 S.E.2d 273
View Case »
Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People v. Frazer, 21 Cal.4th 737, 982 P.2d 180, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 312, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7116, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9017

Facts

The defendant was charged with lewd conduct against a child under section 288, with the alleged crime occurring between 1984 and 1984. The prosecution was initiated under section 803(g), which allows for prosecution within one year of a victim's report, even if the statute of limitations had expired. The defendant demurred, arguing that section 803(g) was unconstitutional as it constituted an ex post facto law and violated due process, as the limitations period had expired before the statute's effective date.

Pursuant to section 803(g), defendant was charged with violating section 288, prohibiting lewd conduct against children, within one year after the victim reported the crime to the police. The fixed limitations period in existence when the crime occurred had run before the complaint was filed, and before section 803(g) became effective.

Issue

Did the application of section 803(g) to revive prosecution for crimes that were time-barred under previous statutes violate ex post facto laws or substantive due process?

Did the application of section 803(g) to revive prosecution for crimes that were time-barred under previous statutes violate ex post facto laws or substantive due process?

Rule

The court applied the principle that a statute allowing for the revival of prosecution for previously time-barred offenses does not constitute an ex post facto law if it does not change the definition of the crime or increase the punishment.

The court applied the principle that a statute allowing for the revival of prosecution for previously time-barred offenses does not constitute an ex post facto law if it does not change the definition of the crime or increase the punishment.

Analysis

The court analyzed the legislative intent behind section 803(g) and its amendments, concluding that the statute was designed to allow prosecution for child molestation cases where the victim reported the crime within one year, regardless of when the crime occurred. The court found that the statute did not violate ex post facto protections as it did not redefine the crime or increase the punishment.

The court analyzed the legislative intent behind section 803(g) and its amendments, concluding that the statute was designed to allow prosecution for child molestation cases where the victim reported the crime within one year, regardless of when the crime occurred. The court found that the statute did not violate ex post facto protections as it did not redefine the crime or increase the punishment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that section 803(g) is constitutional and applicable to cases where the statute of limitations had expired prior to its enactment.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that section 803(g) is constitutional and applicable to cases where the statute of limitations had expired prior to its enactment.

Who won?

The People prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court ruled that the statute allowing for prosecution was constitutional and did not violate ex post facto laws.

The People prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court ruled that the statute allowing for prosecution was constitutional and did not violate ex post facto laws.

You must be