People v. Shedd

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Shedd

702 P.2d 267, 1985 Colo. LEXIS 464

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJuly 1, 1985

Docket84SA106

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 702 P.2d 267 (People v. Shedd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Shedd, 702 P.2d 267, 1985 Colo. LEXIS 464 (Colo. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

*268 PER CURIAM.

The prosecution appeals an order of the Adams County District Court dismissing an information filed against the defendant, Gary Dean Shedd. We affirm.

The facts in this case are undisputed. On February 15, 1983, the prosecution filed an information charging the defendant with sexual assault on a child. § 18-3-405, 8 C.R.S. (1978). The information alleged that the defendant committed the sexual assault between September 1 and December 31, 1977. The defendant thereafter moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the three-year statute of limitations barred prosecution. § 16-5-401, 8 C.R.S. (1978). At the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, the prosecution argued that in July of 1982 the Colorado General Assembly increased the period of limitations for sexual assault on a child from three years to ten years. §§ 16-5-401(6) & 18-3-411(2), 8 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). The prosecution maintained that the new statute of limitations revived the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the three-year limitations period had expired prior to the enactment of section 16-5-401(6), and that the new ten-year statute of limitations did not revive the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. We agree.

A case barred from prosecution by a statute of limitations cannot be revived by subsequent legislation that acts to extend the limitations period. E.g., People v. Montera, 195 Colo. 118, 575 P.2d 1294, 1295, n. 3 (1978); United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir.1975); Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir.1928); People v. Liebling, 36 Ill.App.3d 1073, 344 N.E.2d 520 (1976); Andrews v. State, 392 So.2d 270 (Fla.App.1980). Retroactive application of a statute of limitations to revive a previously barred prosecution violates the fundamental constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation.

The district court’s order dismissing the defendant’s case is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*268 PER CURIAM.

The prosecution appeals an order of the Adams County District Court dismissing an information filed against the defendant, Gary Dean Shedd. We affirm.

The facts in this case are undisputed. On February 15, 1983, the prosecution filed an information charging the defendant with sexual assault on a child. § 18-3-405, 8 C.R.S. (1978). The information alleged that the defendant committed the sexual assault between September 1 and December 31, 1977. The defendant thereafter moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the three-year statute of limitations barred prosecution. § 16-5-401, 8 C.R.S. (1978). At the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, the prosecution argued that in July of 1982 the Colorado General Assembly increased the period of limitations for sexual assault on a child from three years to ten years. §§ 16-5-401(6) & 18-3-411(2), 8 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). The prosecution maintained that the new statute of limitations revived the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the three-year limitations period had expired prior to the enactment of section 16-5-401(6), and that the new ten-year statute of limitations did not revive the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. We agree.

A case barred from prosecution by a statute of limitations cannot be revived by subsequent legislation that acts to extend the limitations period. E.g., People v. Montera, 195 Colo. 118, 575 P.2d 1294, 1295, n. 3 (1978); United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir.1975); Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir.1928); People v. Liebling, 36 Ill.App.3d 1073, 344 N.E.2d 520 (1976); Andrews v. State, 392 So.2d 270 (Fla.App.1980). Retroactive application of a statute of limitations to revive a previously barred prosecution violates the fundamental constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation.

The district court’s order dismissing the defendant’s case is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 P.2d 267, 1985 Colo. LEXIS 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shedd-colo-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack