228 Conn. 393 | Conn. | 1994
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the seven year limitation period in General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 54-193a
The essential facts are undisputed. The defendant was arrested on November 18, 1991, on charges that he had sexually abused a young boy. The information filed by the state charged the defendant with: two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (l);
The statute in effect at the time the alleged offenses were committed, § 54-193 (b), provided for a five year limitation period. That period expired even before the alleged victim came forward. Prior to the five year period expiring, however, the legislature enacted § 54-193a, which took effect on October 1, 1990. Section 54-193a provides a seven year limitation period for child sexual abuse offenses that are committed under circumstances like those of the present case.
On July 29,1992, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him claiming that the prosecution was time barred because: (1) the original five year statute of limitations expired before prosecution of the alleged offenses commenced; and (2) the newer
In State v. Paradise, supra, 352-53, we held that “statutes of limitation in criminal cases are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused . . . [and] are not to be accorded retrospective effect absent language clearly necessitating such a construction . . . .’’The defendants in Paradise were arrested in 1981 on charges that they had committed a murder in 1974. The statute of limitations in effect at the time of the murder was five years. The legislature amended the statute in 1976 to eliminate the limitation period for the prosecution of murder and certain other felonies. Id., 347-48. These facts make clear that in Paradise, we considered the identical issue raised in this appeal, that is, whether a new statute of limitations may be applied to an offense committed prior to its effective date, where the new statute takes effect before the original statute of limitations expires.
The state concedes that the trial court was required, under Paradise, to dismiss the charges against the defendant because neither the language nor the legislative history of § 54-193a indicates that the legislature intended the statute to have a retrospective effect. The state claims, however, that Paradise was “based on the faulty premise that the newer statute of limitations was sought to be applied ‘retroactively’ ” and therefore should be overruled. The state claims alternatively that “the rules of statutory construction that underlie the holding in Paradise are inapplicable” because
I
The state first claims that Paradise was based on the faulty premise that a statute of limitations that extends a previous limitation period before that previous period has expired is “retroactive.” The state claims that the application of an extended statute of limitations is not retroactive as long as the original limitation period has not expired. The state claims that to be “retroactive,” a statute must affect a “vested right” that existed on the date it took effect. Because a defendant has no right to a statute of limitations defense while the original limitation period remains unexpired, a new statute of limitations that takes effect before the original limitations period has expired does not affect a vested right and therefore cannot be retroactive. Therefore, the state argues, the Paradise court’s “reliance on rules of statutory construction pertaining to retroactivity is misplaced and should be reconsidered.” We disagree.
We note, first, that this same “vested right” argument was made by the state in Paradise and rejected by this court. See State v. Paradise, Conn. Supreme Court Records & Briefs, Dec. Term, 1982, Pt. 2, State’s Brief pp. 5-8,13-14. Therefore, this is not a case like State v. Welch, 224 Conn. 1, 615 A.2d 505 (1992), in which we overruled part of the holding of an earlier case. In Welch, we reviewed the briefs submitted in the earlier case and discovered that an issue underlying part of the holding in the case had not been independently briefed by the parties and considered by the court. Id., 5-6. We concluded, therefore, that this part of the holding had not “resulted from a careful judicial consideration of competing values, honed by the thoughtful arguments of the litigants then before the court.” Id., 5.
After a thorough consideration of the parties’ arguments in State v. Paradise, supra, and the reasoning behind that decision, we conclude that it should not be overruled. The holding in Paradise was based firmly on the principle that criminal statutes must be strictly construed; id., 352; not, as the state claims, on a technical misunderstanding of the nature of retroactivity. For this reason, we also reject the state’s suggestion that our recent decision in Roberts v. Caton, 224 Conn. 483, 619 A.2d 844 (1993), undermines our holding in Paradise. In Roberts, we held that an extended civil statute of limitations could be applied to the plaintiff’s
II
We next consider the state’s claim that the rules of statutory construction that underlie the holding in Paradise should not be applied to § 54-193a because this statute is remedial and must be construed in favor of child sex abuse victims. The state claims that § 54-193a is remedial in that “it seeks to correct a deficiency in the prior law—i.e., a limitation period that was not sufficiently long enough to enable society to redress certain wrongs perpetrated on its children.”
We have long held that “ ‘[cjriminal statutes are not to be read more broadly than their language plainly requires . . . .’ State v. McGann, 199 Conn. 163, 177, 506 A.2d 109 (1986); see also State v. White, 204 Conn. 410, 424, 528 A.2d 811 (1987); State v. Dolphin, 203 Conn. 506, 523, 525 A.2d 509 (1987). Moreover, ‘[a] penal statute must be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. State v. Paradise, 189 Conn. 346, 352, 456 A.2d 305 (1983).’ State v. Torres, 206 Conn. 346, 355, 538 A.2d 185 (1988); see also State v. Bunkley, 202 Conn. 629, 641, 522 A.2d 795 (1987).” State v. Russell, 218 Conn. 273, 277-78, 588 A.2d 1376 (1991). “ ‘[A]mbiguities are ordinarily to be resolved in favor of the defendant.’ State v.
These general rules of construction for criminal statutes are further reinforced by the specific command of State v. Paradise, supra, that “criminal statutes [of limitations] are not to be accorded retrospective effect absent language clearly necessitating such a construction . . . .” Id., 353. We presume that the legislature is aware of the judicial construction placed upon its enactments. Cappellino v. Cheshire, 226 Conn. 569, 576, 628 A.2d 595 (1993); Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Huntley, 223 Conn. 22, 30, 610 A.2d 1292 (1992). State v. Paradise, supra, put the legislature on notice that if it intends that a new criminal statute of limitations should apply retrospectively, it must make that intent clear. The state cannot point to anything in the language of the statute or in its legislative history that expresses such an intent. Therefore, we must interpret the legislature’s silence to mean that § 54-193a was not intended to be applied retrospectively. The liberal construction urged by the state is therefore unwarranted.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.
General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 54-193a provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 54-193, no person may be prosecuted for any offense involving sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual assault of a minor except within two years from the date the victim attains the age of majority or seven years after the commission of the offense, whichever is less, provided in no event shall such period of time be less than five years after the commission of the offense.”
Number 93-340, § 11, of the 1993 Public Acts, which took effect October 1, 1993, amended § 54-193a to provide: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 54-193, no person may be prosecuted for any offense involving sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual assault of a minor except within two years from the date the victim attains the age of majority or within five years from the date the victim notifies any police officer or state’s attorney acting in his official capacity of the commission of the offense, whichever is earlier, provided in no event shall such period of time be less than five years after the commission of the offense.”
General Statutes § 54-193 (b) provides in relevant part: “No person may be prosecuted for any offense, except a capital felony, a class A felony or a violation of section 53a-54d, for which the punishment is or may be imprisonment in excess of one year, except within five years next after the offense has been committed. ...”
Because of this disposition, we need not consider the defendant’s alternative grounds for affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. The defendant claims that the application of General Statutes § 54-193a to him would violate article first, §§ 8 and 9, of the Connecticut constitution, and also the equal protection provisions of both the state and federal constitutions.
General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (1) provides: “A person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when such person (1) compels another person to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or by the threat of use of force against such other person or against a third person which reasonably causes such person to fear physical injury to such person or a third person . . . .”
General Statutes § 53a-49 provides in relevant part: “(a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of mental state required for commission of the crime, he: (1) Intentionally engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if attendant circumstances were
General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 53a-71 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person and such other person is (1) under sixteen years of age . . . .”
Section 53a-71 was amended by No. 93-340, § 2, of the 1993 Public Acts, which took effect October 1, 1993.
General Statutes § 53-21 provides: “Any person who wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that its life or limb is endangered, or its health is likely to be injured, or its morals likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.”