The State v. Watson
340 Ga. App. 678
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1996, J.W. reported she was raped after being taken to a stranger’s apartment; a sexual-assault exam and photos were taken that night.
- J.W. did not fully disclose at the initial police contact that the assault occurred in an apartment; more detailed facts were revealed to police only in 2013.
- DNA evidence produced a match on or about March 29, 2013; Kelvin Watson was arrested and later indicted in 2015 for rape and false imprisonment.
- Watson moved for a plea in bar, arguing the rape indictment was time-barred; the trial court granted the motion, finding the victim knew the assailant’s identity in 1996 (including name and phone number) and discrediting inconsistent testimony.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) the indictment was within the applicable statute of limitations because DNA can extend prosecution timing, and (2) the tolling provision for an unknown perpetrator did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution was timely under the statute allowing DNA-based identity prosecutions | State: 2002 amendment permits prosecution at any time when DNA establishes identity, so indictment is timely | Watson: If identity was known from non-DNA evidence, the 15-year limit applies and prosecution is time-barred | Court: State failed to present any evidence at the plea hearing about DNA or what it established; therefore the court did not rely on the DNA-tolling provision and affirmed dismissal |
| Whether OCGA § 17-3-2(2) tolling (person unknown) applied | State: Tolling ended only when State acquired actual knowledge of defendant’s identity; contends it lacked that knowledge earlier | Watson: Victim knew assailant’s identity in 1996, so tolling did not apply and limitations ran | Court: Trial court’s factual finding that victim knew the attacker (name/phone) in 1996 is not clearly erroneous; tolling did not apply; plea in bar properly granted |
| Burden of proof for overcoming statute of limitations defense | State: must prove prosecution is not barred or that an exception applies | Watson: statute barred unless State proves otherwise | Court: State bears burden at plea-in-bar hearing and failed to meet it regarding DNA exception; any tolling exception construed narrowly |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boykin, 320 Ga. App. 9 (trial-court factual findings and credibility accepted unless clearly erroneous)
- State v. Crowder, 338 Ga. App. 642 (burden on State at plea in bar to prove case falls within statute or exception)
- State v. Mullins, 321 Ga. App. 671 (State must plead and prove indictment not barred by limitations)
- Jenkins v. State, 278 Ga. 598 (person-unknown tolling exception requires absence of an identified suspect; tolling ends when State has actual knowledge)
- Beasley v. State, 244 Ga. App. 836 (victim’s knowledge imputed only if actual; statute does not run on a constructive-knowledge standard)