Actually it’s pretty common to have limits. It’s why NY passed a law to let anyone make a claim regardless of when it happened by a certain date. It was a catchup law, pretty much, and now the limit is back in place.
I’m surprised that actually worked. Normally the statute of limitations in place when the crime occurs is the one that applies, and extending it later does not let you retroactively prosecute cases barred by the previous statute of limitations. Stogner v California went that way, for example.
Let me rephrase what I wrote before. Given Stogner, I’m surprised the courts didn’t shoot this down as an ex post facto law. Hope everybody has a permanent recording of a perfect alibi for where they are and what they were up to at all times forever, just in case if ex post facto laws are back on the table whenever a state wants to make a one time exception.
Again, see Stogner. In that case the statute of limitations was extended for a crime, and Stogner was tried for a charge that would have been barred by the previous statute of limitations but not by the new one.
The decision in the end was that he was not subject to prosecution, essentially that any past conduct you could not be prosecuted for you remain unable to be prosecuted for regardless of any future changes to the law. Basically once outside statute of limitations you can’t be put back inside it or it’s ex post facto.
So for example if the statute of limitations for a crime moved from 5 years to 20, if you are accused of doing a thing 6 years ago when the extension passes you are safe, but if you did it 4 years ago the extension applies. Except apparently in this case.
Actually it’s pretty common to have limits. It’s why NY passed a law to let anyone make a claim regardless of when it happened by a certain date. It was a catchup law, pretty much, and now the limit is back in place.
I’m surprised that actually worked. Normally the statute of limitations in place when the crime occurs is the one that applies, and extending it later does not let you retroactively prosecute cases barred by the previous statute of limitations. Stogner v California went that way, for example.
The legislature made a one time exception here.
Let me rephrase what I wrote before. Given Stogner, I’m surprised the courts didn’t shoot this down as an ex post facto law. Hope everybody has a permanent recording of a perfect alibi for where they are and what they were up to at all times forever, just in case if ex post facto laws are back on the table whenever a state wants to make a one time exception.
It’s not ex post facto. The rape laws already existed. The statute of limitations was extended.
Again, see Stogner. In that case the statute of limitations was extended for a crime, and Stogner was tried for a charge that would have been barred by the previous statute of limitations but not by the new one.
The decision in the end was that he was not subject to prosecution, essentially that any past conduct you could not be prosecuted for you remain unable to be prosecuted for regardless of any future changes to the law. Basically once outside statute of limitations you can’t be put back inside it or it’s ex post facto.
So for example if the statute of limitations for a crime moved from 5 years to 20, if you are accused of doing a thing 6 years ago when the extension passes you are safe, but if you did it 4 years ago the extension applies. Except apparently in this case.
Perhaps the NY statue is fully civil in character? I don’t really know either way, but it would be an explanation to your question.