People v. Superior Court ( 2007 )

TURNER, P. J., Concurring.

I concur in the judgment. I believe that Penal Code section 803, subdivision (f)(2)(B) with its reference to “[t]he crime” is ambiguous. At one point, Penal Code section 803, subdivision (f)(1) refers to a report by a victim “of a crime described in Section . . . 288.” Later in Penal Code section 803, subdivision (f)(2)(B) there is the requirement that the “crime” involve substantial sexual conduct within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.066. Defendant argues that the mere reporting of a violation of Penal Code section 288 triggers the one-year statute of limitations. By contrast, the prosecution contends that the initial report of the crime must involve substantial sexual conduct within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.066. The nonspecific use of the term “crime” in both parts of section 803, subdivision (f) creates an ambiguity, which permits the use of legislative history materials. (Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554, 567 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 468, 169 P.3d 889]; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 543-544 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 169 P.3d 559].)

The provision extending the statute of limitations until one year after a report to law enforcement was first adopted in 1993. (Stats. 1990, ch. 587, § 2, p. 2997; Stats. 1993, ch. 390, § 1, p. 2224.) All of the legislative materials clarify the crime that triggers the one-year period of limitations is the one referred to in Penal Code section 803, subdivision (f)(2)(B); one that involves substantial sexual conduct. The Legislative Counsel’s Digest for Assembly Bill No. 290 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) (5 Stats. 1993, Summary Dig., p. 142) states: “(1) Existing law establishes statutory limitation periods for commencing criminal actions, as specified. Under those provisions, existing law generally requires the prosecution of a felony to be commenced within 3 years, except that if an offense is punishable by imprisonment for 8 years or more, prosecution is required to be commenced within 6 years, [f] (2) . . . [f] The bill also would provide that notwithstanding other limitations of time, as specified, a criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the date of a report to a law enforcement agency by a person of any age alleging that he or she, while under the age of 18 years, was the victim of a specified sex crime. These provisions would apply only if the specified limitation period in (1) above has expired, the crime involved substantial sexual conduct, as described, and there is independent evidence that clearly and convincingly corroborates the victim’s allegation.” (Italics added.) As can be noted, the only reference in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest to a crime is to the one reported and that offense must involve substantial sexual conduct.

As is typically the case, like the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, committee reports also treat the report of a crime involving substantial sexual conduct as the one that commences the one-year period to commence criminal proceedings by one of the applicable means specified in Penal Code section 804. The bill analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Judiciary states: “This bill would provide that whenever a person of any age alleges that he or she was a victim of a specified sex offense, as defined, when under 18 years of age, a criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the date of a report to a law enforcement agency, if the offense was corroborated by clear and independent supporting evidence substantially supporting the victim’s allegation, and involved substantial sexual contact.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 290 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 21, 1993, p. 2, italics added.) At another point, the report states, “Under the new exception to the statute of limitations created by this bill, the offense would need to involve substantial sexual conduct . . . .” (Id. at p. 3.) The same language appears in a bill analysis prepared for the Senate. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 290 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 21, 1993, p. 1.)

As can be noted, each of the two committee reports equates the offense reported by the victim to law enforcement, which thereby triggers the one-year statute of limitations, with a crime involving substantial sexual contact. No committee report adopts defendant’s analysis. No committee report states that the disclosure by a victim of a crime not involving substantial sexual conduct triggers the one-year statute limitations.