Opinion ID: 1670498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: position of the state

Text: The State contends that under T.C.A. Section 40-2-103 the statute of limitations is tolled for any period in which the defendant conceals the fact of the crime; and that the alleged threats of physical violence if the victim told, etc., trapped the victim in silence. The State reads State v. Tidwell, supra , as demonstrating that the courts are indeed capable of carefully and discerningly applying the concealment provision to child sexual abuse cases. Tidwell is distinguished from the instant case by the absence of threats, positive acts of concealment and an intra-family relationship between the accused and the victim. The State relies upon Crider v. State, supra , for the proposition that threats of physical violence could constitute concealment of a crime against a person. The State supports the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals in its reliance upon the Minnesota case of State v. Danielski, supra , wherein the Court of Criminal Appeals found that case to be authority for the proposition that the use of parental authority to commit sexual abuse and control the victim's life so as to prevent reporting of those acts constituted concealment. The State answers the argument that the statutes in Indiana and Minnesota differ from the Tennessee statute by stating that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not rely upon the results of the specific statutes in those jurisdictions to reach its legal conclusions, but applied the general reasoning and theories concerning child sex abuse crimes to the particular context of Tennessee's concealment doctrine. The State cites and relies upon the Nevada case of Walstrom v. State, 104 Nev. 51, 752 P.2d 225 (1988). The case involved a charge of lewdness with a minor. The court found that the crime could be committed in secret, even though it involved a victim. The court held that the nature of the crime of child sexual abuse and the methods used to perpetrate and hide the crime resulted in concealment. The State advocates adoption of the philosphy behind the definitions of concealment vis-a-vis stolen property found in State v. Lawson, 695 S.W.2d 202, 203 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985), and U.S. v. Grindstaff, 479 F. Supp. 599 (M.D.Tenn. 1978). Those cases equate concealment with any act which makes discovery of the property by the owner more difficult. The State characterizes the Bentley decision of the Kansas court as being harsh; and says that in that case the court failed to recognize that the will of the victim can be effectively overridden by the use of threats and coercions, destroying the ability of the victim to report the crime. In addition, the State argues that the Bentley decision ignores the fact that in some cases, particularly where children are involved, the fact that they know that an act has been committed against them is not the same as knowing that a crime has occurred. The State cites from a comment in the Ohio State Law Journal titled NOT ENOUGH TIME?: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SHORT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR CIVIL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE LITIGATION. Harshaw, 50 Ohio L.J. 756 (1989). The point is made that a child victim of sexual abuse suffers a damaged psyche and weakened ability to perceive right and wrong, which hinders the child from taking self-protective measures.