State v. Gum
214 Ariz. 397, 153 P.3d 418, 499 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 8 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislature may amend a statute of limitations to extend the time period for prosecution without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause, provided the amendment is enacted before the original limitations period has expired.
Facts:
- On September 14, 1991, two women were sexually assaulted at gunpoint by an unidentified assailant.
- The victims reported the crime to the police immediately, and law enforcement collected evidence, including semen samples.
- Despite their investigation, police were unable to identify the assailant for over a decade.
- The statute of limitations in effect in 1991 for this crime was seven years.
- In 1997, the Arizona legislature amended the statute of limitations to provide that the time period does not run for serious offenses like sexual assault when the identity of the perpetrator is unknown.
- In March 2002, while Edward Harry Gum was in prison for an unrelated crime, a mandatory blood sample was taken.
- Law enforcement subsequently matched Gum's DNA profile to the DNA from the semen samples collected from the 1991 sexual assault.
- Following the DNA match in 2004, Gum was identified as the assailant.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Harry Gum was indicted on two counts of sexual assault.
- Gum entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty in the trial court.
- The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Gum to two consecutive terms of twenty-eight years' imprisonment.
- Gum filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court, alleging his prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations and his counsel was ineffective.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the prosecution was not time-barred and denied Gum's petition.
- Gum filed a petition for review of the trial court's order with the Arizona Court of Appeals.
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 legislative amendment that extends a criminal statute of limitations apply to a crime for which the original limitations period had not yet expired at the time the amendment became effective?
Opinions:
Majority - Winthrop, J.
Yes. A legislative amendment extending a statute of limitations applies to crimes where the original limitations period has not expired at the time the amendment takes effect. The court reasoned that applying such an amendment is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law because it does not criminalize previously innocent conduct, increase punishment, or deprive the defendant of a defense that was available when the crime was committed. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court case Stogner v. California, the court distinguished between impermissibly reviving a prosecution after the limitations period has expired and permissibly extending a limitations period that is still running. A defendant's right to a statute of limitations defense is not a vested right until the time period has fully expired. Because the seven-year period for Gum's 1991 crime had not expired when the legislature amended the statute in 1997, Gum had no vested right to that defense, and the amendment validly extended the time for his prosecution.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'vested rights' approach to statutes of limitations in criminal law, aligning Arizona with federal precedent. It clarifies that a defendant's right to a statute of limitations defense only becomes absolute once the time period has fully elapsed. The ruling has significant implications for cold cases, particularly those solved by subsequent technological advancements like DNA matching, by allowing legislatures to keep the window for prosecution open as long as they act before the original deadline expires.
