Florida Statute of Limitations Violation by xeu45894


More Info
									                          FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY
                           SEX CRIMES EDITION
                         BY DENNIS NICEWANDER
                                  Vol. 32, No. 14, April 6, 2007

State v. Calderon, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D808 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2007):

       Amendment to the limitations statute for felonies resulting in death, which altered the
       limitations period from four years to provide that prosecution could be commenced at any
       time, applied retroactively to defendant's first degree conspiracy to commit murder
       charge; amended statute stated that it applied “to pending cases the prosecution of which
       has not been barred” prior to the enactment date of amendment, defendant had committed
       his crimes prior to the enactment of amended statute and charges against defendant were
       not time-barred when amended statute went into effect, and amended statute did not only
       apply to cases in which charges were already filed.

       Discussion: This is not a sex offense, but the language discussed is similar to the
       language used in the DNA extension in the statute of limitations statute. 775.15(15)(b).
       The general rule is that we have to apply the statute of limitations that existed at the time
       of the offense. When the above language is written into the statute, however, we can
       apply the new statute of limitations as long as the old statute had not expired at the time
       of the amendment.

Roebuck v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007):

       Evidence that child victim had previously falsely accused her brother of physical abuse
       was not admissible in prosecution for lewd and lascivious battery; plain language of
       statute authorized impeachment of witness with only prior convictions and there was no
       “false reporting” exception written into or considered by statute, previous false accusation
       did not involve defendant, false report concerned dissimilar crime, proffered evidence did
       not establish a motive on victim's part to lie about charged offense, and evidence could
       not be admitted based on witness's character since victim's character was not essential
       element of defense or charge.

Bramberg v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D858 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007):

       Search of defendant's residence by law enforcement officers pursuant to condition of
       defendant's probation that allowed warrantless searches was not rendered unreasonable
       under Fourth Amendment by investigatory, as opposed to supervisory, purpose of search,
       given that officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
       Discussion: This is a very important case for probation cases. The general rule has been
       that if evidence is obtained pursuant to a probation search, it can only be used for a
       violation of probation, but it cannot be used to support a new criminal charge. This case
       presents a new twist to this law. Relying on the recent Supreme Court decision of U.S. v.
       Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001), the court ruled that if the probation order says that law
       enforcement can search the probationers residence, and the police officers have
       reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, the police officers can conduct a warrantless
       search even though the probation officer is not present. The defendant has a diminished
       expectation of privacy that allows a search with less than probable cause.

Robles v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D869 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007):

       Trial court that imposed eight-year sentence for sexual battery could add 80 points to
       defendant's sentencing scoresheet for sexual penetration, even absent a specific jury
       finding of penetration; additional points increased the minimum possible sentence, but
       did not affect the statutory maximum of 15 years, so as to implicate Apprendi and

To top