Stogner v. California

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Stogner v. California
ArgueDate=March 31
ArgueYear=2003
ReargueDate=
ReargueYear=
DecideDate=June 26
DecideYear=2003
FullName=Marion Reynolds Stogner v. California
Citation=
USVol=539
USPage=607
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding= A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.cite web
author=
year=
month=
url=http://www.onecle.com/mcle/source/us/539/01-1757/index.shtml
title=Stogner v. California
publisher=www.onecle
pages=
ISBN=
accessdate=2007-12-30]
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=Breyer
JoinMajority= Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg
Dissent=Kennedy
JoinDissent=Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
LawsApplied=; U.S. Const. amend. XIV

"Stogner v. California", ussc|539|607|2003 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.cite web
author=
year=
month=
url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1757/
title=Stogner v. California
publisher=oyez.org
pages=
ISBN=
accessdate=2007-12-30]

Circumstances

In 1994, the California State Legislature enacted a specific statute of limitations [ PC Section 803(g) (3)(A) ] for child sexual abuse crimes, allowing charges to be filed within one year of the time that the crime was reported to the police. This statute allows, when the prior limitations period has expired, criminal prosecution on child molesting charges many years after its occurrence. In 1998, petitioner Marion Stogner was indicted for molesting for acts committed between 1955 and 1973, under California's specific statute of limitations. This occurred after Stogner's two sons were both charged with molestation. During the State's investigation of one of the sons, Stogner's daughters reported that their father sexually abused them for years when they were under the age of 14. The grand jury found probable cause to charge Stogner with molestation of his two daughters. [cite web
author=
year=
month=
url=http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/stogner-v-califo.html
title=Psychology and the Law - Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607
publisher=American Psychological Association
accessdate=2007-12-31] cite web
author=
year=
month=
url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-1757
title=Marian Reynolds Stogner, Petitioner v. California
publisher=FindLaw
pages=
ISBN=
accessdate=2007-12-31]

Stogner claims that this statute violates the ex post facto law and due process clauses by retroactively invoking laws that were not in place at the time of the alleged offenses. At the time the crimes were allegedly committed, the statute of limitations was three years. The victims, his two daughters, said they had not reported sooner because they were in fear of their father. The applicable California law had been revised in 1996, extending the statute of limitations retroactively.

Appeals

The retroactive implementation of the laws was the focus of Stogner's appeal, claiming that the law violated his rights under the of the U.S. Constitution, as well as his rights to due process. The trial court agreed with Stogner, but the ruling was reversed by the California Court of Appeal. The trial court denied Stogner's subsequent motion for dismissal under the same grounds. Stogner appealed on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, first appellate district; the Court of Appeal affirmed. [cite web
author=
year=
month=
url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1757.ZS.html
title=Cornell University Law School - Stogner v. California (01-1757) 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 93 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 37, reversed
publisher= University of Cornell Law School
pages=
ISBN=
accessdate=2007-12-30]

Stogner appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, that the law was a violation of the ex post facto clause of the constitution by a split 5–4 decision. The Supreme Court held that "a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution."

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 539

Footnotes

External links

* [http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/stogner-v-califo.html Psychology & the Law - Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607]
* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/607/ Stogner v. California - 539 U.S. 607]