BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 813
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 21, 2016
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
SB
813 (Leyva) - As Amended March 31, 2016
SUMMARY: Eliminates any statute of limitation for specified sex
offenses. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that prosecution for the following offenses may
commence at any time:
a) Rape, as specified;
b) Spousal rape, as specified;
SB 813
Page 2
c) Rape in concert, as specified;
d) Sodomy, as specified;
e) Lewd acts upon a child involving "substantial sexual
conduct," as specified;
f) Continuous sexual abuse of a child;
g) Oral copulation, as specified; and,
h) Sexual penetration, as specified.
2)Specifies that the elimination of the statute of limitations
shall only apply to crimes that were committed on or after
January 1, 2017, or for which the statute of limitations that
was in effect before January 1, 2017 has not run as of that
date.
3)Makes technical conforming changes to related statutes.
EXISTING LAW:
SB 813
Page 3
1)Provides that there is no statute of limitations for crimes
punishable by death, or by imprisonment in the state prison
for life, or by 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
must be commenced within six years after commission of the
offense. (Pen. Code, § 800.)
3)Provides that prosecution for other felonies punishable by
less than eight years must be commenced within three years
after commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 801.)
4)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 40th birthday. (Pen.
Code, § 801.1, subd. (a).)
5)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).)
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
SB 813
Page 4
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).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "The purpose of
the 'Justice for Victims Act' is simple: To prevent rapists
and sexual predators from evading legal consequences in
California simply because the statute of limitations has run
its course. Regardless of when a rape or sexual assault is
discovered or reported, survivors of sexual offenses must have
an opportunity to seek justice in a court of law. SB 813 does
not change the burden of proof and victims will still have to
prove their allegations in court. All this bill does is
extend the opportunity for victims to have their day in court
since there should never be an expiration date on justice."
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
SB 813
Page 5
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.
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."
SB 813
Page 6
(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
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
SB 813
Page 7
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
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,
SB 813
Page 8
(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: There is a strong public policy
against eliminating the statute of limitations. Memories fade
as time passes. Evidence that might have 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
SB 813
Page 9
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 eliminate the statute of limitations
altogether in these cases when several other exceptions
already exist to ensure prosecution.
Moreover, elimination of the statute of limitations will not
necessarily get victims the justice they deserve. In cases
where there is no DNA, prosecutors may have to tell a victim
that even though the case is not time barred, there is not
enough evidence to bring the case to trial.
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 provisions eliminating the statute
of limitations for the specified crimes will apply either only
to crimes committed after its effective date, or to crimes for
which a 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.
6)Argument in Support: According to the California Women's Law
Center, a sponsor of this bill, "Currently, the statute of
limitations for the prosecution of a felony sex offense is
just 10 years, while the prosecution of sexual offenses
against a minor must be commenced prior to the victim's 40th
birthday. These statute of limitations, which allow
perpetrators to escape justice because of the passage of an
arbitrary measure of time, are grossly unfair to survivors of
SB 813
Page 10
sexual offenses. Our laws should protect the rights of
victims who have the courage to come forward whenever they
feel safe doing so. Instead, the current laws silence victims
and protect their assailants?.
"SB 813 will send the message to victims of sexual violence that
California takes these heinous crimes seriously and that the
law is on their side. It will empower victims as they make
the important decision to report the crimes committed against
them. And SB 813 will diminish one of sexual predator's most
powerful weapons: the silence of men and women who survive
their attacks."
7)Argument in Opposition: According to the Sonoma County Public
Defender's Office, "There are a number of scenarios which
demonstrate the difficulties with eliminating the statute of
limitations for rape.
"The average person called upon to defend themselves against
allegations of a sexual assault that happened 15, 20, or 30
years ago would be hard pressed to remember where they were
and who they were with. If the defendant were innocent, it
would be even more difficult because they might not even know
their accuser.
"The dangers of false accusations are not limited to imaginary
situations. In the last 10 years, there have been high
profile accusations that turned out to be false; i.e., in
2006, the accusations of rape against 3 members of the Duke
University lacrosse team and in November 2014, the horrific
rape allegations against 7 members of a fraternity at the
University of Virginia detailed in the now discredited Rolling
Stone article.
"There are numerous stories of people imprisoned for rape
convictions after being falsely accused who were later
exonerated by DNA, the victim recanting, the discovery of
false confessions or other evidence. We have included a few
of these tragic stories- both from California and around the
SB 813
Page 11
country.
"After spending 16 years in prison, Luis Varga who had been
sentenced to 55 years in prison was finally exonerated by DNA.
"Larry Davis, 57, and Alan Northop, 49, were false convicted of
raping a housekeeper in 1993 and spent 17 years in prison
before being exonerated by DNA.
"Brian Keith Banks, a former American football linebacker who
spent more than five years in prison after being falsely
accused of rape by a classmate. His conviction overturned in
2012 after his accuser was secretly recorded admitting she had
fabricated the story.
"After 28 years, Clarence Moses-El, who had been sentenced to 48
years in prison after a neighbor said she dreamed he was the
man who raped her and beat her in the dark. He was released
after the court vacated his conviction and the DA finally
turned over a confession that he had received two years
earlier from another inmate.
"In 2013, Stanley Wrice, who had been sentenced to 100 years for
rape, was freed from prison after serving 30 years. The judge
threw out Wrice's confession and conviction finding that he
had falsely confessed after being beaten in the face and groin
by Chicago police.
"Being falsely charged with sexual assault is also traumatic.
People lose their jobs, schooling, and reputation in the
community. It is expensive to defend against false rape
allegations. Even when the charges are dismissed, the
accusations live on the Internet haunting the individual
forever."
8)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 46 (Alquist), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
would have eliminated the statute of limitations for
SB 813
Page 12
specified sex crimes when the alleged victim was under the
age of 14 at the time of the offense. SB 46 failed passage
in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
b) SB 256 (Alquist) of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session,
would have eliminated the statute of limitations for
specified sex crimes. SB 256 failed passage in the Senate
Public Safety Committee.
c) SB 261 (Speier) of the 2005-2006 Legislative Session,
would have eliminated the statute of limitations for
specified sex crimes. SB 261 was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Women's Law Center (Sponsor)
AFSCME Local 685
Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Protective Parents Association
SB 813
Page 13
City of West Hollywood
Crime Victims United of California
End Rape Statute of Limitations Campaign
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles Probation Officers Union
National Association of Social Workers- California Chapter
National Council of Jewish Women/Los Angeles
National Organization for Women, Hollywood Chapter
Orange County Sheriff's Department
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
Santa Clara District Attorney's Office
Two Private Individuals
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Sonoma County Public Defender's Office
SB 813
Page 14
Analysis Prepared by:Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744