BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 926
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 24, 2014
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 926 (Beall) - As Amended: March 17, 2014
SUMMARY : Extends the statute of limitation for crimes of
childhood sexual abuse from a victim's 28th birthday until the
victim's 40th birthday. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that the prosecution for any of the following
offenses that is alleged to have been committed when the
victim was under 18 years of age may be commenced at any time
before the victim's 40th birthday:
a) Rape;
b) Sodomy;
c) Lewd or lascivious acts;
d) Oral copulation;
e) Continuous sexual abuse of a child; and,
f) Sexual penetration.
2)Specifies that the extended tolling provisions shall only
apply to crimes that were committed on or after January 1,
2015, or for which the statute of limitations that was in
effect before January 1, 2015 has not run as of that date.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that there is no statute of limitations for crimes
punishable by death, or by imprisonment in the state prison
for life, or for life without the possibility of parole.
(Pen. Code, § 799.)
2)Provides that prosecution for crimes punishable by
imprisonment for eight years or more and not otherwise covered
SB 926
Page 2
must be commenced within six years after commission of the
offense. (Pen. Code, § 800.)
3)Provides that prosecution for felonies punishable by less than
eight years must be commenced within three years after
commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 801.)
4)Provides that prosecution for a felony offense requiring sex
offender registration shall be commenced within 10 years after
commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 801.1, subd. (b).)
5)Provides that, notwithstanding any other time limitations, for
specified sex crimes that are alleged to have been committed
when the victim was under the age of 18, prosecution may be
commenced any time prior to the victim's 28th birthday. (Pen.
Code, § 801.1, subd. (a).)
6)Provides that a criminal complaint may be filed within one
year after a report to a law enforcement agency that a person
was the victim of a sexual offense while under the age of 18
years. To file such a complaint, the applicable limitation
period must have expired and the alleged crime must have
involved substantial sexual conduct corroborated by evidence,
as specified. (Pen. Code, § 803 subd. (f).)
7)Provides that, notwithstanding any other limitation of time, a
criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the date on
which the identity of the suspect is conclusively established
by deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing if specified conditions
are met. (Pen. Code, § 803 subd. (g)(1).)
8)Provides that if more than one time period described in the
statute of limitations scheme applies, the time for commencing
an action is governed by that period that expires the latest
in time. (Pen. Code, § 803.6, subd. (a).)
9)Provides that the statute of limitations for a civil action
based on childhood sexual abuse is eight years after the date
the plaintiff attains the age of majority, or within three
years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should
have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring
after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse,
whichever period expires later. (Civ. Pro. Code, § 340.1,
subd. (a).)
SB 926
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "[SB] 926 would
reform the criminal statute of limitations by raising the age
at which an adult survivor of childhood sex abuse can seek
prosecution from 28 years of age to 40. Well documented
medical research shows that victims of these horrible crimes
suffer from P.T.S.D. and severe memory loss. With the
psychological damage caused of child sex abuse coupled with
the high rates of recidivism found in sexual predators, there
is a real need to expand the time survivors of these horrible
crimes may come forward and file a complaint with law
enforcement.
"The current law favors the abuser by letting the time run out
to file a criminal complaint before the victim of the abuse is
ready. This potentially has serious public safety
consequences by letting sexual predators wait out the clock
and the chain of abuse continues.
States like Illinois and Florida have eliminated the statute of
limitations, while New York, Iowa and Pennsylvania seek reform
as well. It is time for California to reform its laws too.
"SB 926 is a modest proposal. The bill does not eliminate the
statute of limitations; it just gives victims a little more
time to come forward and expose their abuser."
2)Statute of Limitations Generally : The statute of limitations
requires commencement of a prosecution within a certain period
of time after the commission of a crime. A prosecution is
initiated by filing an indictment or information, filing a
complaint, certifying a case to superior court, or issuing an
arrest or bench warrant. (Pen. Code, § 804.)
The statute of limitations serves several important purposes
in a criminal prosecution, including staleness, prompt
investigation, and repose. The statute of limitations
protects persons accused of crime from having to face charges
based on evidence that may be unreliable, and from losing
access to the evidentiary means to defend against the
accusation. With the passage of time, memory fades, witnesses
die or otherwise become unavailable, and physical evidence
becomes unobtainable or contaminated.
SB 926
Page 4
The statute of limitations also imposes a priority among
crimes for investigation and prosecution. The deadline serves
to motivate the police and to ensure against bureaucratic
delays in investigating crimes.
Additionally, the statute of limitations reflects society's
lack of desire to prosecute for crimes committed in the
distant past. The interest in repose represents a societal
evaluation of the time after which it is neither profitable
nor desirable to commence a prosecution.
These principals are reflected in court decisions. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that statutes of limitations
are the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale
criminal charges. (United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S.
116, 122.) There is a measure of predictability provided by
specifying a limit beyond which there is an irrebuttable
presumption that a defendant's right to a fair trial would be
prejudiced. Such laws reflect legislative assessments of
relative interests of the state and the defendant in
administering and receiving justice.
More recently, in Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607,
the Court underscored the basis for statutes of limitations:
"Significantly, a statute of limitations reflects a
legislative judgment that, after a certain time, no quantum of
evidence is sufficient to convict. And that judgment
typically rests, in large part, upon evidentiary concerns -
for example, concern that the passage of time has eroded
memories or made witnesses or other evidence unavailable."
(Id. at p. 615.)
The amount of time a prosecuting agency may charge an alleged
defendant varies based on the crime. In general, the
limitations period is related to the seriousness of the
offense as reflected in the length of punishment established
by the Legislature. (People v. Turner (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th
1591, 1594-1595; see, e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 799-805.) After a
comprehensive review of criminal statutes of limitation in
1984, the Law Revision Commission recommended that the length
of a "limitations statute should generally be based on the
seriousness of the crime." (17 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep.
(1984) p. 313.) The Legislature overhauled the entire
statutory scheme with this recommendation in mind. In People
SB 926
Page 5
v. Turner, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th 1591, the court summarized
the recommendations of the Law Revision Commission:
The use of seriousness of the crime as the primary
factor in determining the length of the applicable
statute of limitations was designed to strike the
right balance between the societal interest in
pursuing and punishing those who commit serious
crimes, and the importance of barring stale claims.
It also served the procedural need to provid[e]
predictability and promote uniformity of treatment for
perpetrators and victims of all serious crimes. The
commission suggested that the seriousness of an
offense could easily be determined in the first
instance by the classification of the crime as a
felony rather than a misdemeanor. Within the class of
felonies, a long term of imprisonment is a
determination that it is one of the more serious
felonies; and imposition of the death penalty or life
in prison is a determination that society views the
crime as the most serious. (People v. Turner, supra,
134 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1594-1595, citations omitted.)
The failure of a prosecution to be commenced within the
applicable period of limitation is a complete defense to the
charge. The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and
may be raised as a defense at any time, before or after
judgment. (People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 13.) The
defense may only be waived under limited circumstances.
(See Cowan v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367.)
The court is required to construe application of the statute
of limitations strictly in favor of the defendants. (People
v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 574; People v. Lee (2000) 82
Cal.App.4th 1352, 1357-1358.)
3)Statute of Limitations for Sex Crimes . The prosecution for a
felony sex offense subject to mandatory sex offender
registration must be commenced within 10 years after the
commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 801.1, subd. (b).)
Additionally, the statute of limitations for the sex offenses
implicated in this bill (rape, sodomy, lewd and lascivious
acts, continuous sexual abuse of a child, oral copulation, or
forcible sexual penetration) is until the victim's 28th
birthday, if the crime was committed when the victim was under
SB 926
Page 6
18. (Pen. Code, § 801.1, subd. (a).)
In addition to these two statutes of limitations, there are two
tolling provisions for prosecution of specified sex offenses.
(See Pen. Code, § 803.)
First, a prosecution can be commenced within one year of the
date a person of any age reports to California law enforcement
that he or she, while under the age of 18 years, was a victim
of a sex crime, as specified, if all of the following occur:
(1) The limitation period specified in Section 800, 801, or
801.1, whichever is later, has expired;
(2) The crime involved substantial sexual conduct, as
specified, excluding masturbation that is not mutual; and,
(3) There is independent evidence that corroborates the
victim's allegation. (Pen. Code, § 803, subd. (f).)
Alternatively, a prosecution can be commenced within one year
of the date on which the identity of the suspect is
conclusively established by DNA testing, if both of the
following conditions are met:
(1) The crime is one that is subject to mandatory sex offender
registration; and,
(2) The offense was committed prior to January 1, 2001, and
biological evidence collected in connection with the offense
is analyzed for DNA type no later than January 1, 2004, or the
offense was committed on or after January 1, 2001, and
biological evidence collected in connection with the offense
is analyzed for DNA type no later than two years from the date
of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 803, subd. (g).)
Finally, the statute of limitations can be extended
indefinitely if the sex crime is charged under an alternate
sentencing scheme or penalty provision. So, if a sex crime is
prosecuted under the One Strike Law, it is not subject to a
statute of limitations but can be commenced at any time. (See
People v. Hale (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 961 [for a sex crime
punishable by life there is no limitation].)
4)Practical Considerations : As noted above, there are several
opportunities to commence prosecution for sex crimes even
after the victim turns 28. Moreover, there is a strong public
policy against extending the statute of limitations by too
much. Memories fade as time passes. Evidence that might have
SB 926
Page 7
been gathered by the police is lost. Witnesses move or die.
Sex crimes are often based on witness and/or victim testimony
and such testimony is most reliable soon after the crime is
committed. In passing these exceptions, the Legislature has
sought to balance the victim's rights with the rights of the
accused. Fairness and due process demand prosecution be
commenced in a reasonable time so the accused may be able to
gather evidence to prove his or her innocence. It seems a
rejection of firmly rooted public policy to further expand the
statute of limitations by more than a decade in these cases
when several exceptions also exist to ensure prosecution.
Moreover, it is unclear why the victim's 40th birthday is the
proper age to set as the limitation. There is consensus in
the research literature that most individuals who experience
childhood sexual abuse do not disclose this abuse until
adulthood. (See e.g., McElvaney, R., Disclosure of Child
Sexual Abuse: Delays, Non-disclosure and Partial Disclosure.
What the Research Tells Us and Implications for Practice.
Child Abuse Rev. (2013); see also Daniel W. Smith et al, Delay
in Disclosure of Childhood Rape: Results from a National
Survey, 24 Child Abuse & Neglect 273 (2000).) However, there
is no such consensus about the timing of disclosure. In fact,
some victims will never disclose the abuse. Is it arbitrary
to choose the age of 40 as the cut off for purposes of the
statute of limitations? Why not age 35, or 50, or 55?
5)Ex Post Facto : In Stogner v. United States, supra, 539 U.S.
607 the Supreme Court ruled that a law enacted after
expiration of a previously applicable limitations period
violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive
a previously time-barred prosecution. (Id. at pp. 610-611,
616.) However, extension of an existing statute of
limitations is not ex post facto as long as the prior
limitations period has not expired. (Id. at pp. 618-619.)
This bill states that it the newly extended time provisions will
apply either only to crimes committed after its effective
date, or to crimes for which the statute of limitations that
was in effect before its effective date has not run as of that
date. In other words, the bill extends current limitations
periods, but does not try to revive time-barred cases.
Therefore, there do not appear to be any ex post facto
concerns raised by this bill.
SB 926
Page 8
6)Argument in Support : According to the Consumer Attorneys of
California , "Sexual offenders should not be allowed to escape
prosecution because their victims suffer such irreparable
physical and mental damage that they are unable to alert the
authorities within the requisite statute of limitations. SB
926 extends the statute of limitations for adult survivors
from age 28 to age 40, allowing these victims to have
additional time to recognize and understand their
psychological trauma so they can seek prosecution. This
extension of the statute of limitations is necessary as
medical research now acknowledges that trauma suffered by
victims of childhood sex abuse can result in memory loss,
which severely affects the victim's ability to report this
crime."
7)Argument in Opposition : According to the California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice , "[T]he state of California has already
recently addressed the specific issues surrounding delayed
disclosure of sex crimes by minor victims. In 2005, SB 111
(Alquist) created the window that allows specified sex
offenses alleged to have been committed when the victim was
under the age of 18 to be commenced any time prior to the
victim's 28th birthday. This provision went into effect
January 1, 2006. There is little evidence that this provision
is ineffective.
"Additionally, current law already provides for an extension of
the statute of limitations in specified circumstances. For
example, a prosecution may commence within one year following
the identity of an accused through a DNA [sic.], even if the
10 year statute of limitations has long expired.
"Finally, Penal Code, § 803(f) provides that a number of sex
crimes committed against minor victims may be brought 'within
one year of the date of a report to a California law
enforcement agency by a person of any age' provided that
independent evidence clearly and convincingly corroborates the
victim's allegation.
"In 2009, the legislature wisely declined to enact SB 46
(Alquist) in 2009, a bill which would have eliminated the
statute of limitations for enumerated sex crimes. The
committee analysis on this bill was thoughtful and correct.
SB 926, much like SB 46 before it, effectively eliminates the
statute of limitations by providing that allegations
SB 926
Page 9
concerning acts more than three decades before they are aired
may be the basis for a criminal prosecution."
8)Related Legislation :
a) SB 924 (Beall), of the current Legislative session,
extends the statute of limitations for civil actions
involving childhood sexual abuse for abuse occurring on or
after January 1, 2015, until the plaintiff reaches 40 years
of age. SB 924 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
b) SB 950 (Torres), of the current Legislative session,
tolls the statute of limitations for giving or offering a
bribe to a public official or public employee until the
discovery of the offense. SB 950 will be heard in this
Committee today.
c) SB 951 (Torres), of the current Legislative session,
provides that the statute of limitations for conspiracy to
commit a crime shall be the same as that of the underlying
crime. SB 951 was held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
9)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 131 (Beall) of the 2013 Legislative session would
have extended the statute of limitations for civil claims
based on childhood sexual abuse. SB 131 was vetoed.
b) AB 1628 (Beall) of the 2011-12 Legislative session would
have, in pertinent part, extended the statute of
limitations for civil claims based on childhood sexual
abuse. AB 1628 was held on the Assembly Appropriations
Committee's suspense file.
c) SB 46 (Alquist), of the 2009-10 Legislative session,
would have eliminated the statute of limitations for
specified sex crimes. SB 46 failed passage in the Senate
Public Safety Committee.
d) SB 111 (Alquist), Chapter 479, Statutes of 2005, created
the limitations window that allows specified sex offenses
alleged to have been committed when the victim was under
SB 926
Page 10
the age of 18 to be commenced any time prior to the
victim's 28th birthday.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California Police Chiefs Association
California Protective Parents Association
Child Abuse Listening Mediation, Inc.
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Consumer Attorneys of California
Crime Victims United
Incest Survivor's Speakers Bureau of California
Law Offices of Greenan, Peffer, Sallander, and Lally, LLP
Restorative Justice International
Safe Child Coalition
Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
Secular Coalition for California
Opposition
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744