Thomas was convicted of sex offenses against four minors. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the provisions of Penal Code section 302(g) regarding the extension of the statute of limitations for three counts of forcible sodomy. The appellate court held that the issue was waived for failure to raise it in the trial court. Further, the trial court was not required to submit the limitations extension issue to the jury under Apprendi v. New Jersey. The 803(g) limitations extension was not a functional equivalent of an element; it does not define conduct but instead regulates the time at which it the conduct can be charged. Therefore, there was no error in failing to instruct the jury to decide the applicability of 803(g). However, the court did have a sua sponte duty to instruct on battery as a lesser included offense of lewd acts, and therefore the conviction on that count had to be reversed.