People v. Lynch

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 34·69 Cal. App. 4th 313·81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552·99 Daily Journal DAR 603·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 539
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 19, 1999No. B123081California3,072 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vogelmiriam, J.

In 1994, William L. Lynch was charged with eight counts of lewd conduct with a child, all of which allegedly occurred *315 between 1965 and 1972. Lynch demurred, contending the three-year statute of limitations in effect at the time of the charged offenses had long since expired, and that it could not be revived by a 1994 amendment extending the period of limitations to one year from the date the charged offenses were first reported to a law enforcement agency. The demurrer was overruled but Lynch’s petition for a writ of mandate was granted by Division Four of our court on the ground that the attempted extension of the expired period of limitations violated Lynch’s constitutional protection from the ex post facto application of a new law. The Supreme Court denied review. In 1997, the Legislature again amended the statute of limitations. The day after the effective date of the amendment, Lynch was charged once again with the same offenses dismissed by Division Four. Lynch demurred, successfully, and the superior court thereafter denied the People’s motion for an order directing the magistrate to reinstate the complaint. The People now appeal, contending the 1997 amendment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.