People v. McGee
1 Cal. 2d 611, 1934 Cal. LEXIS 422, 36 P.2d 378 (1934)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In criminal prosecutions, the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement that limits the power of the court to proceed. An information or indictment showing on its face that the prosecution is time-barred fails to state a public offense and is invalid, and this defect may be raised at any time.
Facts:
- On or about March 30, 1926, the defendant allegedly committed the crime of rape.
- On October 17, 1927, the defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 3, 1930, an information was filed in the trial court charging the defendant with rape, more than three years after the alleged commission of the offense.
- The defendant appeared without counsel, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to state prison.
- On March 18, 1933, the defendant filed a motion in the trial court to set aside the judgment.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's order denying the motion to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have jurisdiction to convict and sentence a defendant when the charging information, on its face, shows that the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations, even if the defendant failed to raise the issue before judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Langdon, J.
No. A court lacks jurisdiction when a criminal information shows on its face that the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations. In criminal cases, the statute of limitations is not a waivable defense but a jurisdictional limit on the state's power to prosecute and the court's power to hear the case. Unlike in civil actions where the statute is a privilege that can be waived, in criminal law the state has declared it will not prosecute crimes after the specified period has elapsed. Therefore, if the charging document reveals that the statutory period has run and alleges no facts that would toll the statute (such as the defendant's absence from the state), it fails to state a public offense, and the court's power to proceed is gone. This jurisdictional defect can be raised at any time, even after conviction and sentencing. The court also noted that the defendant's 1927 burglary conviction could not be used as a 'prior conviction' to enhance sentencing for the 1926 rape offense, as it occurred subsequent to the commission of that offense.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a conflict in California law by definitively establishing that the criminal statute of limitations is jurisdictional, not merely an affirmative defense. This holding significantly strengthens the statute of limitations as a protection for defendants, as it means the defense cannot be waived by a failure to raise it, even through a guilty plea. It places the burden on the prosecution to file charges within the statutory period or plead facts that justify tolling the statute. The ruling confirms that a conviction based on a time-barred information is void and can be challenged at any point, reinforcing the statute as a fundamental limitation on the state's power to prosecute.
