Court Opinion

ID: 9505537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:06:11.73945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:34.231748
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice,
dissenting.
Wallace was charged with child molesting as a Class C felony under the 1988 version of Indiana Code section 35-42-4-3(c). I agree with the majority that the five-year limitations period set forth in Indiana Code section 35-41-4-2(a)(1) applies, and therefore the State's claim against Wallace was stale. For many years, this state has followed the rule that a statute of limitations defense was not waivable. I believe both the current Trial Rules and policy considerations dictate that a defendant waives a statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in the trial court. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court.
This problem has been addressed in Indiana only a few times. Most recently, in Smith v. State, 678 N.E.2d 1152, 1154 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied, the Court of Appeals, citing an 1859 case from this Court, Ulmer v. State, 14 Ind. 52, 54-55 (1859), concluded that the State's prosecution of a defendant for an offense after the expiration of the statutory period constituted fundamental error requiring reversal of the defendant's conviction. The court reasoned that because the State bears the burden of proving that the offense was committed within the statutory period, it should be viewed as an element of the crime and failing to establish it was fundamental error. Id. (citing Fisher v. State, 259 Ind. 633, 645, 291 N.E.2d 76, 82 (1978); Atkins v. State, 487 N.E.2d 114, 117 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)). In Ulmer, this Court stated that a defendant need not plead the statute of limitations defense in order to avail himself of it. 14 Ind. at 54-55.
ULmer preceded the adoption of the Indiana Trial Rules by over a century. In the civil context, it is now clear that if a defendant fails to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, the defense is waived. See Ind. Trial Rule 8(C). Under federal criminal procedure, the answer is also clear. A statute of limitations defense is an affirmative defense to a crime that must be asserted before or at trial to avoid waiver. See Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128, 135, 38 S.Ct. 41, 62 L.Ed. 193 (1917); United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 92-93 (3d Cir.1986); United States v. Walsh, 700 F.2d 846, 855 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Wild, 551 F.2d 418, 424-25 (D.C.Cir.1977). Under the federal rule, the jurisdiction of the court is not defeated when the State seeks to prosecute the claim beyond the statutory period. Karlin, 785 F.2d at 92-93. The Sixth and Tenth Circuits, which had previously held that the statute of limitations defense was not waivable, have apparently reversed course. See United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1280 (10th Cir.1987); United States v. Hook, 781 F.2d 1166, 1173 n. 10 (6th Cir.1986).
As the D.C. Cireuit pointed out in Wild, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b) identifies the defenses that may be raised at any time. By implication, all others, including a statute of limitations defense, must be raised at or before trial. 551 F.2d at 424 (quoting 8 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 12.03(8) (2d. ed.1976)). The same reasoning is valid under the Indiana Trial Rules. Indiana Rule of Criminal Procedure 21 provides that the appellate and trial rules now apply to criminal proceedings unless inconsistent with the criminal rules. See Rita v. State, 674 N.E.2d 968, 970 n. 3 (Ind.1996). Crim*572inal Rule 3 provides that a motion to dismiss based upon subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, but does not specify when other affirmative defenses must be raised. Trial Rule 8(C) calls for an affirmative defense to be raised by a "responsive pleading," i.e., in the answer in the case of a civil defendant. In the criminal context, there is no analog to the answer, but the same result is accomplished by requiring a defendant to raise a statute of limitations defense in a pretrial motion, as the federal courts have advised. Seq, e.g., United States v. Grimmett, 150 F.3d 958, 961-62 (8th Cir.1998) (statute of limitations issue was properly raised in pretrial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)).
Policy considerations point in the same direction. I see no compelling reason to allow the civil defendant to waive a statute of limitations defense but not the criminal defendant. A criminal defendant, like a civil defendant, should not be able to sit on a statute of limitations defense until long after trial is completed. The result is a waste of taxpayer funds and court time. The statute of limitations defense is not a claim that the defendant did not commit the crime. Rather, it is a claim that the prosecution should not be permitted to go forward for policy reasons extraneous to this defendant and the crime with which he is charged. Many other more fundamental constitutional and statutory rights are accorded the eriminal defendant, but most of these rights may be waived, either affirmatively or by the failure to assert them. There is no reason why the failure to assert a statute of limitations defense should be treated more favorably. See Wild, 551 F.2d at 424-25 (reasoning that, like the right to be represented by counsel or the right not to be put twice in jeopardy, the statute of limitations defense should be waivable). The State, as well as society at large, has a substantial interest in the prosecution of crimes, regardless of when they occurred. Requiring a statute of limitations defense to be asserted in a timely manner will encourage a defendant with a valid defense to raise it promptly. It will also avoid the situation where the State mistakenly neglects to prove the date of the offense and the defendant says nothing hoping to capitalize on that blunder on appeal.
In this case, affirming the conviction obviously sets the defendant up for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the end result of my view may be the same as the majority's. The same will presumably be true in other cases unless the failure to raise the defense can be shown to have been the result of a plausible defense strategy. But requiring the defense to be asserted will encourage counsel to present it, and should discourage wasted court proceedings. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
DICKSON, J., concurs.