Federal law states that a child who is sexually abused has until their death to make a claim.

(§ 3283) Federal law states that a child who is sexually abused has until their death to make a claim.

Federal law states that a child who is sexually abused has until their death to make a claim.

___________________________________________________________________________________

When a case like Judy Delonga's goes in front of the courts, the first thing a judge may look at is the statute of limitations. How long after the incident is the victim coming forward?

SOUTH DAKOTA - Keloland

Delonga's Case: Statute Of Limitations (See Below)

UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE

Copyright © 2005 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,

one of the LEXIS Publishing (TM) companies

*** CURRENT THROUGH P.L. 109-94, APPROVED 10/26/05 ***

TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART II. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 213. LIMITATIONS

GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION

18 USCS § 3283 (2005)

§ 3283. Offenses against children

No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child.

HISTORY:

(June 25, 1948, ch 645, § 1, 62 Stat. 828.)

(As amended Sept. 13, 1994, P.L. 103-322, Title XXXIII, § 330018(a), 108 Stat. 2149; April 30, 2003, P.L. 108-21, Title II, § 202, 117 Stat. 660.)

HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES

Prior law and revision:

This section is based on R. S. § 1046; Act July 5, 1884, ch 225, § 2, 23 Stat. 122 (former 18 U.S.C. § 584).

The words "customs laws" were substituted for "revenue laws", since different limitations are provided for internal revenue violations by 26 USCS § 3748.

This section was held to apply to offenses under the customs laws. Those offenses are within the term "revenue laws" but not within the term "internal revenue laws". United States v Hirsch (1879) 100 US 33, 25 L Ed 539, United States v Shorey (1869) F. Cas No 16,282, and United States v Platt (1840) F. Cas No 16054a, applied this section in customs cases. Hence it appears that there was no proper basis for the complete elimination from former 18 U.S.C. § 584 of the reference to revenue laws.

Meaning of "revenue laws": United States v Norton (1876) 91 US 566, 23 L Ed 454, quoting Webster that "revenue" refers to "The income of a nation, derived from its taxes, duties, or other sources, for the payment of the national expenses" and quoting United States v Mayo (1813) F Cas No 15755, that "revenue laws" meant such laws "as are made for the direct and avowed purpose of creating revenue or public funds for the service of the Government".

Definition of revenue: "Revenue" is the income of a State, and the revenue of the Post Office Department, being raised by a tax on mailable matter conveyed in the mail, and which is disbursed in the public service, is as much a part of the income of the government as moneys collected for duties on imports (United States v Bromley, 53 US 88, 99, 13 L Ed 905).

"Revenue" is the product or fruit of taxation. It matters not in what form the power of taxation may be exercised or to what subjects it may be applied, its exercise is intended to provide means for the support of the Government, and the means provided are necessarily to be regarded as the internal revenue. Duties upon imports are imposed for the same general object and, because they are so imposed, the money thus produced is considered revenue, not because it is derived from any particular source (United States v. Wright (1870) F. Cas No 16770).

"Revenue law" is defined as a law for direct object of imposing and collecting taxes, dues, imports, and excises for government and its purposes (Re Mendenhall (1935, DC Mont) 10 F Supp 122).

Act March 2, 1799, ch 22, 1 Stat. 627, regulating the collection of duties on imports, is a revenue law, within the meaning of Act April 18, 1818, ch 70, 3 Stat. 433, providing for the mode of suing for and recovering penalties and forfeitures for violations of the revenue laws of the United States (The Abigail, (1824) F. Cas No 18).

Changes were made in phraseology.

Amendments:

1994. Act Sept. 13, 1994, substituted the section heading and text for the following:

"§ 3283. Customs and slave trade violations "No person shall be prosecuted, tried or punished for any violation of the customs laws or the slave trade laws of the United States unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after the commission of the offense.".

2003. Act April 30, 2003 substituted this section for one which read:

"§ 3283. Child abuse offenses

"No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25 years.".

NOTES:

Related Statutes & Rules:

Customs offenses, 18 USCS § 541 .

Slave trade offenses, 18 USCS § 1582 .

Limitations for offenses under internal revenue laws generally, 26 USCS § 6531 .

Research Guide:

Federal Procedure:

9 Fed Proc L Ed Criminal Procedure § 22:774.

Am Jur:

41 Am Jur 2d, Indictments and Information § 43.

Interpretive Notes and Decisions:

1. Conspiracy 2. Perjury 3. Smuggling 4. Miscellaneous

1. Conspiracy

Conspiracy to defraud United States out of duties on imported merchandise was not crime arising under revenue laws so as to be governed by statute of limitations provided by predecessor to 18 USCS § 3283. United States v Hirsch (1879) 100 US 33, 10 Otto 33, 25 L Ed 539.

Offense of conspiring to defraud United States of taxes upon distilled spirits arose under revenue laws, subject to limitation under predecessor to 18 USCS § 3283. United States v Dustin (1872, CCSD Ohio) 25 F Cas 946, No 15012; United States v Fehrenback (1875, CCD La) 2 Wood 175, 25 F Cas 1057, No 15083.

2. Perjury

Periods of limitation of actions fixed with respect to offenses arising under revenue laws under R.S. 1046 [predecessor to 18 USCS § 3283], do not apply to indictment for perjury. United States v Noveck (1926) 271 US 201, 70 L Ed 904, 46 S Ct 476, 1 USTC P 177, 5 AFTR 6017.

3. Smuggling

Smuggling is offense under revenue laws for purposes of determining appropriate statute of limitations. United States v Shorey (1869, CCD NH) 27 F Cas 1071, No 16282.

4. Miscellaneous

Where general five-year limitations period, 18 USCS § 3282, had not expired for defendant's crimes when Congress enacted former 18 USCS § 3509(k) (recodified at 18 USCS § 3283), which extended limitations period for crimes involving physical and sexual abuse of child, applying extended limitations period to defendant's crimes did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause; thus, district court properly declined to dismiss indictment against defendant as time-barred. United States v Jeffries (2005, CA8 SD) 405 F3d 682.

Rights granted servicemember by five-year statute of limitations for sodomy of child as set out in Unif. Code Mil. Justice art. 43, 10 USCS § 843, were not affected by 18 USCS § 3283, which provides that no statute of limitations precludes prosecution for physical or sexual abuse or kidnapping of child during life of child. United States v Toy (2004, NMCCA) 60 MJ 598, 2004 CCA LEXIS 158.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Delonga's Case: Statute Of Limitations

2005 KELOLAND TV - November 2, 2004

When a case like Judy Delonga's goes in front of the courts, the first thing a judge may look at is the statute of limitations. How long after the incident is the victim coming forward? 

Federal law states that a child who is sexually abused has until their death to make a claim. 

But South Dakota state law gives a victim of sexual abuse just 3 years to come forward from the time they were abused or from the time they recall the seriousness of the abuse. DeLonga's lawyer says that law needs to change.

Did Judy DeLonga's forty years of silence help Father Bruce MacArthur stay a free man?

According to South Dakota's statute of limitations...Yes.

Delonga's attorney Stephanie Pochop said, "It limits the rights of victims who often times like Judy suffer in silence for decades from being able to come forward and bring their claims in civil suits because of the way the statutes are drafted in South Dakota."

Pochop says her client's case should be used as an example to get the law changed.

"I think this is a tool we can use to have a voice with our legislature to take some recognition of that right now in the state of SD we have statutes of limitations which prevent admitted pedophile like the serial pedophile that abused Judy from being in prison and prosecuted criminally," said Pochup.

State Representative and Sioux Falls attorney Joni Cutler said, "The law favors acting soon after a person feels they've been wronged over waiting long periods of time."

Cutler says waiting makes it difficult to prove a case but she agrees with Delonga's attorney that 3 years isn't enough time for a victim abused as a child to come forward.

Cutler said, "That's a relatively short period of time given the nature of these types of cases where a child who's been a victim may take a very long time and lot of help, a lot of years processing their victimization."

It's a statue Cutler says should possibly be changed to reflect federal law.

"It may be worthy of taking a look at what our statute of limitations does in these cases and see if maybe we shouldn't compare it to the federal statures and perhaps take a second look at how we treat child victims of sexual abuse," she said.

In 1990, the US Congress created a special statute of limitations for children who are victims of sexual abuse. That was amended in 1994, and again in 2003.

___________________________________________________________________________________

FAIR USE NOTICE

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

___________________________________________________________________________________

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."  --Margaret Mead

___________________________________________________________________________________