Opinion ID: 1784133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tolling provision

Text: ¶ 47 This court must now address whether the judge or the jury decides questions under the tolling provision in Wis. Stat. § 939.74(3). In addition, we must determine the requisite burden of proof that applies to such an issue: preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶ 48 MacArthur argues that at a pretrial proceeding, the circuit court should decide whether the State's evidence on tolling is strong enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was no longer a public resident in Wisconsin while the statute of limitations was still running. MacArthur further argues that if the circuit court concludes that the State has met its burden prior to trial, the case may proceed to trial where the jury should be given a special verdict question on the public resident tolling provision. The State, on the other hand, encourages this court to adopt the procedure applied by federal courts to the analogous tolling provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3290, Fugitives from justice. [18] We reject MacArthur's arguments and adopt an approach consistent with the federal courts. ¶ 49 While the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's crime was committed within the applicable statute of limitations, it is for the [circuit] court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether certain facts (e.g., the defendant's [status as a public resident within this state]) have affected what the time limit is. 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King & Orin S. Kerr, Criminal Procedure § 18.5(a), 189 (3d ed. 2007) (citing United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003); United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145 (2d Cir.2006); United States v. Greever, 134 F.3d 777 (6th Cir.1998); United States v. Marshall, 856 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Gonsalves, 675 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.1982)). ¶ 50 Our approach to tolling is guided by United States v. Florez , a Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that articulated the requisite burden of proof and standard of review for the federal tolling provision. Florez, 447 F.3d at 149-50. In Florez, the following protocol was set forth: After the defendant makes a statute of limitations challenge, the State bears the burden of showing, at a pretrial proceeding, that Wis. Stat. § 939.74(3) has been satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. However, at trial, the jury must determine the date or date range of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be accomplished by the general verdict's language or when appropriate with a special verdict. If the date found by the jury creates a bar against prosecution because of the statute of limitations and the court's pretrial findings regarding tolling, the court must then rule accordingly on the issue. ¶ 51 This approach is supported for a number of reasons. Under this approach, the issue is then decided prior to trial, which prevents an untimely prosecution. Moreover, it allows the State the opportunity to appeal the court's decision on this jurisdictional issue. As a practical matter, this is an issue which is typically known and addressed early on in litigation. Furthermore, the fact that a defendant was not a public resident for some period of time is not determinative of guilt and not an element of the crime charged. Rather, it is a fact that determines whether the law tolls a statute of limitations. Therefore, the State need not prove a defendant's status as a public resident beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, compliance with a statute of limitation is required for the court to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and jurisdiction is typically a question of law for the trial court to decide. ¶ 52 On appellate review, a circuit court's tolling decision under Wis. Stat. § 939.74(3) should be subject to the following standard: Appellate courts should review the circuit court's findings of fact relevant to the application of Wis. Stat. § 939.74(3) only for an erroneous exercise of discretion, and this court reviews de novo the circuit court's legal conclusion that these facts establish tolling as specified by the statute. See Florez, 447 F.3d at 150.