18 N.Y.3d 409
N.Y.2012Background
- Jane, 14, was pregnant in November 2002 after a conception in August 2002; she initially denied abuse, later alleged a rape by a classmate, then recanted.
- Jane turned 18 in January 2006; in December 2007, Quinto was charged with rape and related offenses based on the later disclosure.
- Indictment charged three time periods in 2002: May–June, July–August, and September, with multiple counts across those periods.
- Supreme Court dismissed the indictment, holding that the November 2002 disclosure did not trigger CPL 30.10(3)(f) tolling for the charged offenses.
- Appellate Division reinstated felony and misdemeanor sex offenses, holding that the November 2002 disclosure did not constitute a report for the second time period.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the November 2002 disclosure did not activate tolling for the indicted offenses; non-sex offenses were untimely under CPL 30.10(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether November 2002 disclosure was a report under CPL 30.10(3)(f) | People: disclosure covered only the August 2002 rape by a classmate | Quinto: disclosure encompassed all charged periods | Disclosures only as to the specific offense; tolling not triggered for other periods |
| What constitutes 'the offense is reported' in CPL 30.10(3)(f) | People: report must describe the offender's acts and harm | Quinto: broad reporting includes all offenses | Report refers to the specific offense described in the communication |
| Effect of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(ii) on non-sex offenses | People: tolling could apply if police knew of offenses | Quinto: tolling not applicable because offenses discovered late | Tolling did not apply; non-sex offenses time-barred |
| Timing of commencement for second period offenses | People: clock begins when 18th birthday reached for those offenses | Quinto: earlier November 2002 report suffices | Limitations began at Jane's 18th birthday for the second period; counts timely and not time-barred for non-sex offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Seda, 93 NY2d 307 (New York 1999) (police knowledge prerequisite for tolling CPL 30.10(4)(a)(ii))
- People v Versaggi, 83 NY2d 123 (New York 1994) (textual interpretation guiding 'report' concept)
- State v Hutchison, 176 Or App 363, 31 P.3d 1123 (Or. App. 2001) (definition of 'the offense is reported' for tolling)
- State v Whittington, 144 NM 85, 183 P.3d 970 (N.M. 2008) (interpretation of 'reported' in reporting-tolling statute)
- State v Green, 108 P.3d 710 (Utah 2005) (notice-based tolling considerations for reporting)