Stogner v. California

2003-06-26

Headline: Law reviving long-expired child-sex prosecutions is blocked as unconstitutional, preventing California from using a later-enacted statute to prosecute decades-old abuse after limitations had already run.

Holding: The Court held that applying a later-enacted California law to revive a prosecution already barred by an expired statute of limitations violates the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, so the revival cannot be used against Stogner.

Real World Impact:

Prevents states from reviving prosecutions after limitations have already expired.
Protects defendants from retroactive criminal exposure long after original time limits.
Limits state power to prosecute decades-old alleged crimes when revival laws come later.

Topics: statute of limitations, ex post facto, child sexual abuse, retroactive criminal law

Summary

Background

A man named Marion Stogner was indicted in 1998 for alleged child-sex offenses committed between the mid-1950s and 1973. At the time those crimes were committed, the criminal statute of limitations was three years and had long expired. In 1993 (and clarified in 1996) California passed a law allowing revived prosecutions if a victim reported the abuse, there was independent corroborating evidence, and the state prosecuted within one year of the report.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court asked whether applying a law enacted after a limitations period expired to revive a time-barred prosecution violates the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. The majority said yes. It explained that such revival threatens the fairness the Clause protects: it withdraws a defense already attached, undermines fair warning, and risks arbitrary or vindictive use of retroactive laws. The Court treated the statute as fitting an old, recognized category of forbidden retroactive criminal laws and relied on long lines of authority and historical analysis to reach its conclusion.

Real world impact

The decision means states cannot apply a later-enacted revival law to prosecute someone after the prior limitations period already expired. States remain free to extend limitation periods prospectively or to revive prosecutions before prior periods have expired. The ruling does not decide guilt or innocence; it resolves a constitutional rule about when criminal liability can be revived.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy dissented, arguing the law did not change the crime’s definition or the punishment and cited statutory safeguards (including corroboration requirements) and victims’ interests in allowing late prosecutions. He would have upheld the California rule.