BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 579
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2013
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 579 (Melendez) - As Amended: March 14, 2013
SUMMARY : Extends the statute of limitations for acts which
obstruct the investigation into the commission of specified sex
crimes committed against minors. The extension applies to
specified ancillary crimes by extending them to either the
victim's 28th birthday (10 years after they reach the age of
majority), one year after a conclusive DNA test, or one year
after a report by an alleged victim reports a specified sex
crime to law enforcement. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends the statute of limitations for accessory to a
principal actor if the offender is accused of harboring,
concealing, or aiding in a violation of rape, sodomy,
continuous abuse of a child, oral copulation, or forcible acts
of sexual penetration; when the victim is a minor and the
violation involved substantial sexual conduct as specified.
2)Extends the statute of limitations for intimidation of
witnesses in cases where the victim was a victim of, or a
witness to rape, sodomy, continuous abuse of a child, oral
copulation, or forcible acts of sexual penetration; when the
principal victim of the sex crime was a minor and the
violation involved substantial sexual conduct as specified.
3)Extends the statute of limitations for threatening to use
force or violence upon a witness when there is a credible
threat against a victim, immediate family member, or victim of
any violation of rape, sodomy, continuous abuse of a child,
oral copulation, or forcible acts of sexual penetration; when
the victim is a minor and the violation involved substantial
sexual conduct as specified.
4)Extends the statute of limitations for compounding or
concealing any violation of rape, sodomy, continuous abuse of
a child, oral copulation, or forcible acts of sexual
penetration; when the victim is a minor and the violation
AB 579
Page 2
involved substantial sexual conduct as specified.
5)Extends the statute of limitations for offering forged records
for any violation of rape, sodomy, continuous abuse of a
child, oral copulation, or forcible acts of sexual
penetration; when the victim is a minor and the violation
involved substantial sexual conduct as specified.
6)Extends the statute of limitations for conspiracy to obstruct
justice for any violation of rape, sodomy, continuous abuse of
a child, oral copulation, or forcible acts of sexual
penetration; when the victim is a minor and the violation
involved substantial sexual conduct as specified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that prosecution for crimes punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for eight years or more must
be commenced within six years after commission of the offense.
(Penal Code Section 800.)
2)Provides that prosecution for crimes punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison must be commenced within
three years after commission of the offense. (Penal Code
Section 801.)
3)Provides that prosecution for specified offenses punishable by
imprisonment in state prison relating to fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, theft or embezzlement upon an elder or
dependent adult, or official misconduct must be commenced
within four years after discovery of the commission of the
offense or within four years after the completion of the
offense, whichever is later. [Penal Code Sections 801.5 and
803(c).]
4)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. [Penal Code Section 803 (f)(1) and (h)(1).]
5)Provides notwithstanding any other limitation of time
described in this chapter, a criminal complaint may be filed
AB 579
Page 3
within one year of the date on which the identity of the
suspect is conclusively established by deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) testing if both of the following conditions are met:
a) The crime is one that is described in the sex offense
registration statute; and,
b) 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. [Penal Code Section
803(g)(1)(A)(B).]
6)Provides that notwithstanding any other limitation of time
described in this chapter, prosecution for a specified felony
sex offense that is alleged to have been committed when the
victim was under the age of 18 years may be commenced any time
prior to the victim's 28th birthday. [Penal Code Section
801.1(a).]
7)Provides that notwithstanding any other limitation of time
described in this chapter, if existing law does not apply,
prosecution for a felony registerable sex offense shall be
commenced within 10 years after commission of the offense.
[Penal Code Section 801.1(b).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "In our society,
we often lament the fact that our children grow up too soon.
They are exposed to endless news accounts highlighting the
violence and evil that exists in this world. It is difficult
to shield them from those harsh realities, and sadly we cannot
fully protect their innocence in these troubling times. Today,
if an individual helps with the cover up of a sexual abuse
crime committed against a child the current statute of
limitations is only 3 years. AB 579 would extend the statute
of limitations for an individual who assists in an obstruction
of justice related crime, when the crime pertains to the
sexual abuse of a minor, indefinitely. After all, if there's
AB 579
Page 4
no time limit to protecting our children, there shouldn't be a
time limit to prosecute those who seek to do them harm."
2)Operation of the Statute of Limitations : 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. (Penal Code
Section 804.) If prosecution is not commenced within the
applicable period of limitation, it 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.]
3)Public Policy Reasoning Behind Statutes of Limitation :
Criminal statutes of limitations are laws that limit the time
during which a prosecution can be commenced. These statutes
have been in operation for over 350 years and are deeply
rooted in the American legal system. There are several
rationales underlying statutes of limitations. First, they
ensure that prosecutions are based upon reasonably fresh
evidence - the idea being that over time memories fade,
witnesses die or leave the area, and physical evidence becomes
more difficult to obtain, identify or preserve. In short, the
possibility of erroneous conviction is minimized when
prosecution is prompt. Second, statutes of limitations
encourage law enforcement officials to investigate suspected
criminal activity in a timely fashion. In addition, it is
thought that the statute of limitations may reduce the
possibility of blackmail based on threats to disclose
information to prosecutors or law enforcement officials.
Another rationale is that as time goes by, the likelihood
increases that an offender has reformed, making punishment
less necessary. In addition, society's retributive impulse
may lessen over time, making punishment less desirable.
Finally, there is the thought that statutes of limitations
provide an overall sense of security and stability to human
affairs. [Lauren Kerns, "Incorporating Tolling Provisions
into Sex Crimes Statute of Limitations", 13 Temple Policy and
Civil Rights Law Review, 325, 327; internal citation omitted.]
In 1984, the California Law Revision Commission published a
AB 579
Page 5
series of recommendations to revise the statute of
limitations. The impetus for reform derived from numerous
changes made to the statute by the Legislature. There were 11
legislative enactments amending the felony statute of
limitations in 14 years. The Commission commented, "This
simple scheme has been made complex by numerous modifications
. . . the result of this development is that the California
law is complex and filled with inconsistencies."
4)Case Law on the Statute of Limitations : Similar assessments
of the purpose of statute of limitations appear in case law.
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, 15 L.Ed. 2d 627, 86 S.Ct. 773.] 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. The California Supreme Court in People v. Zamora
(1976) 18 Cal. 3d 538, 547 commented that adopting a period of
limitations represents a legislative recognition that for all;
but for the most serious of offenses (such as murder and
aggravated forms of kidnapping), a never-ending threat of
prosecution is more detrimental to the functioning of a
civilized society than it is beneficial.
In Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607, the court ruled
that application of a new state law permitting resurrection of
otherwise time-barred criminal prosecutions violated the ex
post facto clause of the United States Constitution. The
court stated an otherwise lapsed statute of limitation may not
be revived for offenses that may have been committed years
before. The State may not retrospectively prosecute cases
where the statute of limitations has expired. The State may
only apply new rules related to tolling statutes of
limitations to conduct committed after the law is passed. In
Stogner , the court reiterated its prior statements regarding
the underlying purpose of the statute of limitation: "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
AB 579
Page 6
evidence unavailable." The court stated that the law reviving
tolled statutes of limitation deprives the defendant of the
"fair warning" that might have led him or her to preserve
exculpatory evidence, and warned that "a Constitution that
permits such an extension by allowing legislatures to pick and
choose when to act retroactively, risks both arbitrary and
potentially vindictive legislation."
The Stogner Court also noted that policy judgments on statutes
of limitations typically rest upon evidentiary concerns; for
example, concern that the passage of time has eroded memories
or made witnesses or other evidence unavailable. As the court
pointed out, without knowing of the possibility that he or she
may be prosecuted, a potential defendant may discard
exculpatory evidence which he or she certainly would have
maintained had he or she known a criminal prosecution was
looming in the distant future. Further, witnesses may be
unavailable or may be deceased by the time of the prosecution.
5)Statutes of Limitations under Current Law : The amount of time
a prosecuting agency may charge an alleged defendant varies
based on the crime. A misdemeanor offense must be charged
within one year of the crime. Felonies generally require
prosecution within three years, although there are exceptions.
(Penal Code Section 801.) Offenses that may be sentenced to
more than eight years in prison must be charged within six
years. (Penal Code Section 800.) Offenses punishable by
death or life imprisonment and embezzlement of public money
may be prosecuted at any time. There is no statute of
limitations for those offenses. (Penal Code Section 799). The
most common example is murder.
6)Statute of Limitations under Current Law for Sex Offenses :
Sex offenses have various statutes of limitations depending on
the specific facts and certain offenses. A criminal complaint
may be filed within one year of the date of a report to law
enforcement by any person who, while under the age of 18, was
the victim of rape, sodomy, child molestation, forcible oral
copulation, continuous sexual abuse of a child, sexual
penetration and fleeing the state with the intent to avoid
prosecution for a specified sex offense. However, the
existing statute of limitations must have expired, the crime
must have involved substantial sexual conduct and there must
be independent evidence to corroborate the victim's
allegations. If the victim is 21 years of age or older at the
AB 579
Page 7
time of the report, the independent evidence shall clearly and
convincingly corroborate the victim's allegations. [Penal
Code Section 803(f)(1) to (3).]
A criminal complaint may also be filed for the above-mentioned
sex offenses any time before the victim's 28th birthday when
the offense is alleged to have occurred when the victim was
under the age of 18. Also, if that time period has elapsed,
any prosecution for a felony registerable sex offense may
commence 10 years after the date of commission. [Penal Code
Section 801.1(a) to (b).]
DNA evidence in specified sex offense cases may also toll the
statute of limitations. A criminal complaint may be filed
within one year of the time in which a suspect is conclusively
identified by DNA. [Penal Code Section 803(g)(1).]
7)Argument in Support : According to the California Catholic
Conference , "We must do everything in our power to protect our
children from the scourge of child abuse - as children
represent the future of our state.
"We laud Assemblymember Melendez for her recognition of the
importance of treating the crime of sexual offenses against
children in a firm and responsible manner so as to ensure the
welfare of our children"
8)Argument in Opposition: According to the American Civil
Liberties Union , "The ACLU of California regrets to inform you
that we must oppose AB 579, which, inter alia, eliminates the
statutes of limitations for offenses involving the harboring a
felon, intimidating a witness, and conspiring to obstruct
justice, if the underlying offenses relate to specified sex
offenses where the victim was a minor.
"The amount of time a prosecuting agency may charge an alleged
defendant varies based on the crime. A misdemeanor offense
must be charged within one year of the crime. Felonies
generally require prosecution within three years, although
there are exceptions. (Cal. Penal Code � 801.) Offenses that
may be sentenced to more than eight years in prison must be
charged within six years. (Cal. Penal Code � 800.)
"Sex offenses have various statutes of limitations depending
on the specific facts and certain offenses. A criminal
AB 579
Page 8
complaint may be filed within one year of the date of a report
to law enforcement by any person who, while under the age of
eighteen, was the victim of rape, sodomy, child molestation,
forcible oral copulation, continuous sexual abuse of a child,
sexual penetration and fleeing the state with the intent to
avoid prosecution for a specified sex offense. However, the
existing statute of limitations must have expired, the crime
must have involved substantial sexual conduct and there must
be independent evidence to corroborate the victim's
allegations. If the victim is twenty one years of age or
older at the time of the report, the independent evidence
shall clearly and convincingly corroborate the victim's
allegations. (Cal. Penal Code � 803, subd. (f)(1)(2)(3).)
"A criminal complaint may also be filed for the
above-mentioned sex offenses any time before the victim's 28th
birthday when the offense is alleged to have occurred when the
victim was under the age of 18. Also, if that time period has
elapsed, any prosecution for a felony registerable sex offense
may commence 10 years after the date of commission. (Cal.
Penal Code � 801.1, subd. (a)(b).) DNA evidence in specified
sex offense cases may also toll the statute of limitations. A
criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the time in
which a suspect is conclusively identified by DNA. (Cal.
Penal Code � 803, subd. (g)(1).)
"Statutes setting limitations for prosecution have been in
operation for over three hundred fifty years and are deeply
rooted in our American judicial system. Several public policy
arguments underlie the reasoning behind statutes of
limitation. First, they ensure that prosecutions are based
upon reasonably fresh evidence - the idea being that over time
memories fade, witnesses die or leave the area, and physical
evidence becomes more difficult to obtain, identify, or
preserve. In short, the possibility of erroneous conviction is
minimized when prosecution is prompt. Second, statutes of
limitations encourage law enforcement officials to investigate
suspected criminal activity in a timely fashion. In addition,
it is thought that statutes of limitation may reduce the
possibility of blackmail based on threats to disclose
information to prosecutors or law enforcement officials. The
United States Supreme Court also expressed concerns for
fairness in commencing stale prosecutions:
" 'A statute of limitations reflects a legislative judgment
AB 579
Page 9
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.'(Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607,
615 [123 S.Ct. 2446].)
"The Court held that a law reviving tolled statutes of
limitation deprives the defendant of the 'fair warning' that
might have led him or her to preserve exculpatory evidence,
and warned that "a Constitution that permits such an
extension by allowing legislatures to pick and choose when to
act retroactively, risks both arbitrary and potentially
vindictive legislation." (Stogner v. California (2003) 539
U.S., at 616; United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S. 116, 122
[86 S.Ct. 773]) (holding that statutes of limitation are the
primary guarantee against bringing overly stale charges).
"AB 579 changes the statutes of limitation for harboring a
felon, intimidating a witness, and conspiracy to obstruct
justice if committed in connection with specified sex
offenses against a minor. Existing law generally requires
cases not involving sex offenses or homicide, to be
prosecuted within three to six years. AB 579 instead allows
a prosecution to commence any time before the alleged
victim's twenty eighth birthday. Hence, where the district
attorney can show that the defendant was an accomplice, or
otherwise guilty of the underlying offense, the provisions of
this bill would be largely duplicative.
"Given the number of exceptions already specified in existing
law, further erosion of the statutes of limitation for these
offenses seriously jeopardizes the defendant's right to a fair
trial, and may be deemed unconstitutional."
9)Related Legislation : SB 131 (Beall) would eliminate the
statutes of limitations for the recovery of damages suffered
as a result of sexual child abuse, as specified. SB 131 is
pending a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
10)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 2534 (Horton), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have added to the list of offenses which extend the
AB 579
Page 10
statute of limitations by allowing the filing of a criminal
complaint within one year of the identification of a
suspect conclusively established as a result of DNA
testing. The added offenses would have included arson,
robbery or bank robbery, kidnapping, attempted murder, any
felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury
on any person other than an accomplice, and any felony in
which the defendant personally uses a firearm. AB 2534
failed passage in this Committee.
b) AB 2709 (Tran), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have added production of child pornography and
surreptitiously taping a person for the purposes of sexual
gratification to the list of offenses in which the statute
of limitations may be tolled until the discovery of the
crime. AB 2702 was never heard by the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
c) SB 261 (Speier), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have eliminated the statute of limitations for
specified sex offenses. SB 261 failed passage in the
Senate Committee on Public Safety.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Catholic Conference
Crime Victims United
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
AB 579
Page 11