By definition, a criminal statute of limitations is a piece of law that places a time limit on when a prosecutor can file criminal charges against an individual. These laws give prosecutors a set period or amount of time to file charges against a suspect. If the given time expires, the prosecutor has limited ability to file charges against a suspect. The suspect can raise the statute of limitations as a defense if the prosecutor fails to file a criminal charge against that person until after the law has expired. In Arizona, severe criminal offenses such as sexual crimes and violent sexual assault have seven years of limitations. The statute ARS 13-107 applies for both 1982 and 1992 accounts. Under the rule, section A stated that any form of sexual assault and prosecution could be commenced at any time, thus removing time limitations. Nevertheless, there were changes that can affect the 2002 account in the current situation.
For all three accounts, the actual identity of the defendant was unknown to the police and state authorities. In fact, there is no evidence to show that the defendant ever lived outside the state of Arizona for the 30-year period running from 1982 to 2012. In addition, there is no evidence to show that the defendant’s residence within Arizona was unknown during the period or that he ever served jail term until he was arrested in 2012 for other offenses. Therefore, there are no statutory exceptions for the cases where his identity was unknown to the police and state authorities and which can delay the duration of the limitation period.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that there have been no statutory exceptions for sexual offenses that would exempt all three counts from the statute of limitations. In the State of Arizona, the existing laws of limitation give prosecutors seven years to charge suspects with such crimes as armed robbery, burglary, aggravated domestic violence, theft, and possession of drugs. In 1982, there were no published Arizona Supreme Court or Arizona Court of Appeals opinions addressing the issue of statute of limitations periods for sexual assaults.
Until 1997, the prescription period was equal to seven years from the moment of the crime. In 1997, subsection E was amended, which claimed that this period began only after the accused person was identified. In State v. Aguilar, Roberto Aguilar appealed to dismiss allegations of sexual assault committed by him in 1993 due to the termination of the prescription period (State v. Aguilar, 2008). Since subsection E was passed only in 1997, all charges were dismissed as time-barred. In State v. Gum, Gum appealed against the decision by the court, claiming that the limitations period had expired in September 1998 (State v. Gum, 2007). However, his prosecution was not recognized as time-barred because his limitations period did not expire until the data of amending the section E.
Based on all three accounts and the legal conditions, there are grounds to believe that the defendant’s first charge can be dismissed. Since subsection E was amended in 1997, he can apply for the dismissal of charges under the first counts, the statute of limitation of which expires until amending. However, there are no constitutional laws that claim that cases, where the dates of the offenses were between 1990 and 1997 may be dismissed. As for the third case, the defendant’s statute of limitation began not earlier than he was identified.
References
State v. Gum. (2007). 1 CA-CR 06-0683 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App.)
State v. Roberto Aguilar. (2008). 2 CA-CR 2007-0126 (Ariz. Ct. App.)