Appellants were charged with multiple sex offenses, all of which had six year statutes of limitation. The crimes alleged took place in 1992, 1993 and 1994. The prosecutor filed the information pursuant to Penal Code section 803, subdivision (g), following the victim’s report of the offenses in 2002. The trial court dismissed the information, finding that it was time-barred and that section 803, subdivision (g) was a revival statute condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stogner v. California, and the prosecutor appealed. The appellate court here reversed. Section 803, subdivision (g), is not a revival statute. The Supreme Court made it clear in Stogner that the ex post facto clause does not prevent the state from extending time limits for the prosecution of future offenses or for prosecutions not yet time barred. As applied to offenses whose statutes of limitation had not expired when subdivision (g) was enacted, or crimes committed after that date, that subdivision is a new statute of limitations applicable after the original statute of limitations has expired. Properly interpreted, the statute of limitations for those offenses is six years or one year after the crime is reported, whichever is greater.