Skip to content
Name: People v. Meza
Case #: E070015
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/14/2019

Where prosecutor requested jury instruction on a time-barred lesser included offense, defendant did not forfeit his statute of limitations challenge despite failure to object in the trial court. In 2014, defendant assaulted his daughter on the street and was charged with felony child endangerment in 2016. At trial, the prosecutor submitted a list of requested jury instructions, including an instruction on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor child endangerment. When the court asked if both parties accepted the instructions, defense counsel said yes. The trial court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense, but did not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brown
Case #: A144372
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/23/2018

For purposes of extending the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses (former Pen. Code, § 803, subd. (g)), a report of sexual abuse made to law enforcement by a person or agency other than the victim does not constitute a report by the victim, even if that report is based on the victim's allegations of abuse. In December 2012, when she was 32 years old, Jane Doe told police that Brown sexually abused her over the course of two years when she was a minor. Doe's mother had previously reported the abuse to police in 1994 when…

View Full Summary
Name: Hudson v. Superior Court
Case #: E065645
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/24/2017

Prosecution for offering a false instrument (Pen. Code, § 115) precluded where more specific statute (Govt. Code, § 87203) applies to defendant's act of filing a statement of economic interest form that did not fully disclose her property interests. Hudson was the secretary of the board of directors for the Palo Verde Healthcare District. Among other offenses, a grand jury indicted Hudson for five felony counts of offering a false instrument (Pen. Code, § 115) for failing to list her husband's property on an annual economic interest form (Form 700). Hudson moved to dismiss the indictment on various grounds, including…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sedillo
Case #: B248671
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/08/2015

Although a premeditated attempted murder prosecution may be commenced at any time, an attempted murder conviction must be dismissed if the premeditation allegation is not proven and the six-year limitations period has run. In 2010 Sedillo was charged with five counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and a number of other offenses stemming from her involvement in a 1992 gang shooting. The prosecutor further alleged that the attempted murders were premeditated. The jury convicted her of the attempted murders, but it found the premeditation allegations not true. Sedillo appealed, arguing, among other things, that the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lewis
Case #: A134995
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 02/09/2015

Report of child molestation to law enforcement agency outside of California did not trigger the running of former Penal Code section 803, subdivision (g)(1)'s one-year limitations period. For a number of years, Lewis molested T.C., his step-daughter, in California and Texas. The abuse in California occurred in 1989. In 1991, T.C. reported Lewis' sexual abuse to a doctor in Texas and he was indicted by a Texas grand jury for raping her. The charge was dismissed in 1992 when the prosecutor lost contact with T.C. In 2007, T.C. reported Lewis' abuse to California authorities. He was subsequently convicted of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ortega
Case #: E054882
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/21/2013

Appellant was properly charged with molesting his daughter where the original charges were filed within 10 years of the commission of the offense. In 1993, appellant began touching his then nine-year-old daughter in a sexual manner at least once a week. The touching stopped in 1996, after appellant's daughter made a partial disclosure to her mother and appellant was kicked out of the house. In 2002, when she was 18 years old, appellant's daughter finally disclosed the full scope of the molestation. In 2003, appellant was charged with nine violations of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) that allegedly…

View Full Summary
Name: Smith v. United States
Case #: Nov-76
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 01/09/2013
Subsequent History: 133 S.Ct. 714; 184 L.Ed.2d 570

Due process does not require the prosecution to disprove a defendant's withdrawal from a conspiracy within the statute of limitations. Smith was convicted of federal drug trafficking and other charges. On appeal he challenged his conspiracy conviction as barred by the applicable federal statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3282), as well as the court's instruction to the jury that once the prosecution proved that Smith was part of a conspiracy, Smith bore the burden of proving withdrawal from the conspiracy. Held: Affirmed. The Court noted the circuits are divided regarding the burden of proving withdrawal from a conspiracy. It…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Milstein
Case #: B233589
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 12/12/2012

The three-year statute of limitations in Penal Code section 801 applies to conspiracy to defraud by false pretenses or false promises (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(4)). Appellant, a former attorney, was charged with a number of offenses, including a violation of section 182, subdivision (a)(4), in connection with an allegedly fraudulent legal service entitled "early release" that he offered to prison and jail inmates. The trial court denied appellant's motion to dismiss the conspiracy count as time-barred under the statute of limitations. Appellant subsequently pleaded no contest to the this count. Reversed. On appeal, the parties…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hale
Case #: A127337
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/28/2012

A prosecution for Penal Code section 269 (aggravated sexual assault of a child) is not subject to a statute of limitations but can be commenced at any time. Appellant was convicted of numerous sexual offenses against his daughter and the daughters of his one-time companion, when the girls were under the age of 14 years and he was 10 years older, and he was sentenced to 325 years to life. On appeal, he contended that the convictions for section 269 could not stand as they were not commenced within a ten-year statute of limitations. The court disagreed. In 1984,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hernandez
Case #: B225494
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/10/2011

The evidence of prior uncharged sex offenses involving appellant's two daughters was admissible at the trial involving continuous sexual abuse of a granddaughter despite the passage of time. The admissibility of the prior abuse of appellant's daughters was determined pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108. It was argued on appeal that the prior acts were too dissimilar to the charged offenses. The prior offenses are not required to be as uniquely similar as would be required under section 1101.In this case, there were significant similarities: sexual abuse began at a very young age and extended into adolescence; the allegations all…

View Full Summary