Keep in mind, though, that the statute of limitations has nothing to do with the period of time in which the defendant must be brought to court after the commission of a crime. It only refers to the period in which the DA must file charges. That causes a lot of confusion.
Here's a common situation: A person is cited or arrested for some minor crime. He shows up for court, but the DA has not filed any charges yet, so he is told to go home. After a few months-- but still within the statute of limitations-- the DA eventually gets around to filing the case. They mail a "Notice to Appear" letter to the defendant's last known address. The defendant never receives the letter, so he never appears for his court date. A warrant is issued for his arrest. Several years later, he is surprised to learn that he has an active warrant.
The SoL would not be the appropriate defense here because prosecutors DID file charges within the proscribed time limits. A warrant was issued when the defendant failed to appear in court, and the warrant has remained outstanding ever since. The warrant will never simply go away on its own. There is no statute of limitations for arrest warrants in California.
Even if the SoL doesn't apply, though, a defendant in this situation has another option. When there has been some long delay between the filing of charges and the defendant's first court appearance, the issue is not with the statute of limitations. Instead, the question is whether or not the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated.
Both the US Constitution and the California State Constitution guarantee the right to a "speedy and public trial". If the government filed criminal charges against some person and then allowed those charges to hang open for a prolonged period time without making an adequate effort to bring that person to court, then the defendant might have a viable defense based on this unconstitutional delay.
Speedy trial violations are challenged with Serna motions. The judge will weigh a lot of factors to decide a Serna motion. The first consideration is the length of the delay. Short delays might be excusable. The longer the delay has been, though, the harder it will be for the DA to overcome. 6 months is usually the threshold where a delay starts to drift toward "unconstitutional".
The next big consideration in any Serna motion is always the blame for the delay. If the defendant knew about his court appearance and chose to flee, he will have a hard time convincing a judge that his rights have been violated. If the DA mailed their "notice to appear" letter to the wrong address (or failed to send a letter at all), the blame might lie with prosecutors. Several years ago, I had a case in which the DA mailed their notice to my client's home in New Orleans, LA. For some reason, the envelope was addressed to "New Orleans, CA", so my client never received it. That Serna motion was granted and all charges were dismissed.
The final consideration in a Serna motion is any prejudice caused by the delay. "Prejudice" can be actual or presumed. If witnesses have died or evidence has been lost, the defendant might be able to prove actual prejudice. He cannot properly defend himself due to the amount of time that has elapsed. When the delay has been over a year, the court will also presume some prejudice, just based on the fact that memories fade and that the defendant has been saddled with criminal charges for an undue length of time. Even if the defendant cannot point to any specific lost piece of evidence, the prosecutor will bear the burden of proving that no such presumed prejudice exists.
Sometimes, arrests warrants are issued after the defendant has already make a court appearance in his case. Maybe he showed up for the first hearing or two, then stopped attending. In those cases, neither the SoL nor speedy trial rights apply. Any warrant will remain active until the defendant shows up to address it. The same is true for warrants issued after conviction (probation violations, etc.). The defendant may have other viable defenses based on missing witnesses, lost evidence, fading memories, etc., but he has no statutory or constitutional right to have the case tossed.
If you or a loved one has an arrest warrant in Orange County, Los Angeles, Riverside or San Bernardino, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John.
No comments:
Post a Comment