Ohio Supreme Court Puts the Brakes on Criminal Statutes of Limitations

September 19, 2010

In a July decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a state law that stops criminal statutes of limitations from running during a period when the accused has purposely avoided prosecution must be applied to all other crimes allegedly committed by that person. This is true regardless of whether the defendant had been indicted for the other crimes or the alleged activity had been discovered at the time of the defendant's flight from justice.

The case in question, State v. Bess, involved a Cuyahoga County man who learned in 1989 that he was being investigated for allegations that he had sexually abused his wife's daughter from a previous marriage. Before an indictment was entered in November of that year, Larry Bess fled to Georgia and assumed a new identity, managing to avoid apprehension until 2007, when he was arrested by the FBI and extradited to Ohio. While preparing the case for trial, the prosecution learned from the girl's brother that he also claimed to have been sexually molested by Bess, despite having made no such claims during the initial investigation and even claiming in 1989 that his sister was lying about the accusations.

Bess was tried on multiple counts of rape, gross sexual imposition, attempted rape and complicity in the commission of rape. He successfully moved for dismissal of all charges involving the boy, and the trial court agreed that the six-year statute of limitations had expired. A jury returned a guilty verdict regarding the charges involving the girl. The state appealed on the issue of whether Bess's flight from justice "tolled" (stopped the running of) the statute of limitations, and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The state Supreme Court decided to review case and resolve an important legal issue.

Evidence Fades, Stories Change

Statutes of limitations exist for very important reasons, including the diminishing accuracy of witness accounts as time passes. The Supreme Court noted the state's argument in Bess that "the purpose of the statute of limitations is to discourage inefficient or dilatory law enforcement." The state also argued that no such circumstances existed in this case and that the statute contains no language that suggests a limit on only such prosecutions as an accused person specifically intended to avoid. Bess argued that criminal matters should be liberally construed against the state and in favor of accused citizens.

A majority of Ohio's Supreme Court Justices largely agreed with the state's interpretation of the statute, stating in their opinion that "an accused who purposefully avoids prosecution cannot complain of prejudice resulting from the failure of the state to promptly commence the prosecution or from the unavailability of evidence as a result of the passage of time." Their reversal of the lower appellate court's decision meant that Bess's case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the dismissed sex crimes charges.

The Upshot: Seek Advice From an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer

The first instinct of anyone who faces accusations of a sex crime, drug trafficking, domestic violence or any other criminal offense should be to pursue information about their legal options. In Larry Bess's case, the facts suggest that he evaded the long arm of the law with his wife's blessing, because they sold their family home and split the proceeds just before his disappearance. His wife's complicity at the time may suggest that the prosecution did not have an airtight case, yet Bess was still afraid of the potential consequences. But twenty years later, his abandonment of home and family most likely loomed large in the minds of a jury as evidence of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

By acting swiftly and proactively on a client's behalf, a defense attorney can assess the prosecution's evidence in light of a suspect's Constitutional rights and present contrary evidence that may cause the state to reduce or abandon charges. This strategy holds true whether a person is aware that they committed a crime or is the victim of baseless allegations. The common denominator: it takes aggressive action from a dedicated legal advocate to see that a person's rights are respected and the law is properly applied.

Article provided by Adam Boyd Bleile
Visit us at www.findmenotguilty.com