People v. Midgley, 84SA480
| Decision Date | 03 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84SA480,84SA480 |
| Citation | 714 P.2d 902 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael MIDGLEY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert L. Russell, Dist. Atty., Jeanne S. Bennett, Deputy Dist. Atty., Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Gregory Walta, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee.
The People, pursuant to section 16-12-102, 8 C.R.S. (1978), appeal from a judgment dismissing prior to trial two counts of sexual assault in the second degree filed against the defendant, Michael Midgley, in the District Court of El Paso County. In dismissing the charges, the district court concluded that the prosecution of the defendant was barred by the three-year limitation period of section 16-5-401(1), 8 C.R.S. (1978). We reverse the judgment and remand the case with directions to reinstate the charges against the defendant.
On September 18, 1984, an information was filed in the District Court of El Paso County charging the defendant with two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, a class 4 felony, in violation of section 18-3-403(1)(f), 8 C.R.S. (1978). 1 The information alleged that one of the offenses was committed on or about May 29, 1980, and the other between May 1 and May 28, 1980.
On the date of the alleged commission of the offenses, section 16-5-401(1), 8 C.R.S. (1978), required a prosecution for sexual assault in the second degree to be initiated within three years following the commission of the offense. In 1982, however, prior to the filing of the charges, the legislature enacted a new statute of limitations, with an effective date of July 1, 1982, which provided that any information charging an accused with a violation of section 18-3-403(1)(f), 8 C.R.S. (1978), must be instituted within ten years following the commission of the offense. Ch. 75, sec. 1, § 18-3-411(2), 1982 Colo.Sess. Laws 313, 314. After the information was filed, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the three-year limitation period of section 16-5-401(1) had expired. The district court granted the motion on November 8, 1984, and this appeal followed.
In People v. Holland, 708 P.2d 119 (Colo.1985), we held that the legislature, without violating the constitutional prohibition against an ex post facto law, could extend the three-year statute of limitations applicable to various types of sexual assault and sexual assault on a child as long as the charges had not already become time-barred as of the effective date of the law extending the prior limitation period. While we acknowledged in Holland that statutes are presumed to be prospective in operation and that criminal statutes of limitation are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused, we nonetheless noted that:
Since the date of the district court's [dismissal] order, however, the General Assembly has provided persuasive evidence of the intent underlying the amendment to section 16-5-401. House Bill No. 1254 amended section 16-5-401 by the addition of section 16-5-401.1, effective July 1, 1985, which provides:
The intent of the general assembly in enacting section 16-5-401(6) and (7) in 1982 was to create a ten-year statute of limitations as to offenses specified in said subsections committed on or after July 1, 1979.
Concluding that this subsequent legislative enactment in 1985 provided persuasive evidence that the General Assembly intended to extend the limitation period to offenses that had not yet been time-barred by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bucy
...136 F.Supp. 17; State v. Whirley (Ala.Crim.App.1987) 530 So.2d 861; State v. Creekpaum (Alaska 1988) 753 P.2d 1139; People v. Midgley (Colo.1986) 714 P.2d 902; State v. O'Neill (1990) 118 Idaho 244, 796 P.2d 121; State v. Nunn (1989) 244 Kan. 207, 768 P.2d 268; People v. Russo (1992) 439 Mi......
-
People v. Thoro Products Co., Inc.
...For these reasons, criminal statutes of limitations generally should be construed liberally in favor of the defendant. People v. Midgley, 714 P.2d 902, 904 (Colo.1986); Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 90 S.Ct. 858, 25 L.Ed.2d 156 By extending into perpetuity the period of time durin......
-
Commonwealth v. Bargeron
...Rather, Whitesell relies on two prior Colorado Supreme Court cases, People v. Holland, 708 P.2d 119 (Colo. 1985), and People v. Midgley, 714 P.2d 902 (Colo. 1986), which held that there must be clear legislative intent to overcome the presumption against retroactivity. In Holland, supra at ......
-
People v. Hicks
...United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1402 (10th Cir.1992); People v. Whitesell, 729 P.2d 985, 986 (Colo.1986); People v. Midgley, 714 P.2d 902, 903–04 (Colo.1986); People v. Holland, 708 P.2d 119, 120 (Colo.1985) (the legislature may extend the statute of limitations for prosecutions......
-
ARTICLE 3
...statute of limitations to offenses occurring on or after July 1, 1979, overcomes presumption of prospective operation. People v. Midgley, 714 P.2d 902 (Colo. 1986). Flat 10-year statute of limitations applies to offenses allegedly committed before June 3, 2002, due to an ambiguity created i......
-
ARTICLE 3 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
...statute of limitations to offenses occurring on or after July 1, 1979, overcomes presumption of prospective operation. People v. Midgley, 714 P.2d 902 (Colo. 1986). Flat 10-year statute of limitations applies to offenses allegedly committed before June 3, 2002, due to an ambiguity created i......