Legal Opinion

People v. Bunn

California Supreme Court

Decided January 10, 2002No. S086128PublishedCited by 76 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

In 1994 and thereafter, the Legislature established and amended a special supplementary statute of limitations for certain sex crimes against minors. (Pen. Code, § 803, subd. (g) (section 803(g)).)1 Under specified circumstances, the 1994 law, as more recently refined, revives the limitations period for such offenses after the usual statute of limitations has expired, even if both the crime, and expiration of the usual limitations *5period, occurred before 1994. We found that these retroactive features did not offend either ex post facto or due process principles in People v.…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. United States v. LovascoSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. People v. Superior Court (Romero)California Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. Le Francois v. GoelCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Le Francois v. GoelCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Quarry v. Doe ICalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Bonnell v. Medical Bd. of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003

71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API