MTC President Sexually Assaulted Sister Missionaries

[_consiglieri]

Sadly, according to this news story (and it is only a news story), it appears that the specific language about "within four years from the date the crime is reported to police" may apply only to child sex crimes and not sex crimes involving adults.

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/ ... 4477c.html

In short, it looks like the statute of limitations on this may well and truly have run in Utah, inasmuch as the alleged victim was not a child when it occurred.

[_Dr Exiled]

Sadly, according to this news story (and it is only a news story), it appears that the specific language about "within four years from the date the crime is reported to police" may apply only to child sex crimes and not sex crimes involving adults.

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/ ... 4477c.html

In short, it looks like the statute of limitations on this may well and truly have run in Utah, inasmuch as the alleged victim was not a child when it occurred.

I don't know if Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) has been considered here but the Supreme Court said in this case that the ex-post facto clause prohibited prosecuting an accused of child sex crimes when the statute of limitations was increased after the prior sex crime statute of limitation had run.

[_Maureen]

...I can find no evidence of the Deseret News reporting on this story, which suggests they are actively complicit in Church cover-ups.

These are the two articles so far...

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... ident.html

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... ident.html

M.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sadly, according to this news story (and it is only a news story), it appears that the specific language about "within four years from the date the crime is reported to police" may apply only to child sex crimes and not sex crimes involving adults.

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/ ... 4477c.html

In short, it looks like the statute of limitations on this may well and truly have run in Utah, inasmuch as the alleged victim was not a child when it occurred.

I looked at this and reached the same conclusion.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sadly, according to this news story (and it is only a news story), it appears that the specific language about "within four years from the date the crime is reported to police" may apply only to child sex crimes and not sex crimes involving adults.

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/ ... 4477c.html

In short, it looks like the statute of limitations on this may well and truly have run in Utah, inasmuch as the alleged victim was not a child when it occurred.

I don't know if Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) has been considered here but the Supreme Court said in this case that the ex-post facto clause prohibited prosecuting an accused of child sex crimes when the statute of limitations was increased after the prior sex crime statute of limitation had run.

Good research. Thanks.

[_toon]

For example, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a change in the requirement to register as a sex offender does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws by requiring convicts to register even though their conviction occurred prior to the passage of the registration law.

123 Wn.2d 488, STATE v. WARD

Mar. 1994

[Nos. 59542-9, 59625-5. En Banc. March 17, 1994.]

STATE v. WARD

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JEFFREY S. WARD, Appellant.
JOHN DOE PAROLEE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Norm Maleng, et al, Respondent.

Nature of Action: Defendant Ward was charged with failing to register as a sex offender. Plaintiff Doe brought an action seeking to be relieved of the duty to register as a sex offender.

Superior Court: The Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 90-1-03555-9, Frederick B. Hayes, J., entered a judgment finding defendant Ward guilty on July 9, 1991. The Superior Court for King County, No. 90-2-22708-1, Edward Heavey, J., dismissed plaintiff Doe's action on July 16, 1991.

Supreme Court: Holding that the retroactive application of the sex offender registration statute did not violate the constitutional ex post facto prohibition, that the registration requirement applies to plaintiff Doe, and that registration does not violate plaintiff Doe's rights of due process and equal protection of the laws, the court affirms the judgments.

http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/123wn2d/123wn2d0488.htm

I believe that changing the statute of limitations in Utah in 2013 to make rape have no statute of limitations is, in fact, retroactively applicable to a rape alleged to have occurred in 1984, even though in 1984 the statute of limitations was only four years.

It is not a violation of the ex-post facto provision.

I don't think that's right. There's a difference between retroactive requiring someone convicted in the distant past to register as a sex offender and changing the statute of limitations to convict someone of a crime where the prior limitations period had already elapsed.

In the first case, it's not really about the statute of limitations. Rather, it's a matter of imposing an additional obligation or requirement on someone who has actually been convicted.

In the second case, it's about changing the statute of limitations in order to prosecute someone who has not been convicted of anything.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't think that's right. There's a difference between retroactive requiring someone convicted in the distant past to register as a sex offender and changing the statute of limitations to convict someone of a crime where the prior limitations period had already elapsed.

In the first case, it's not really about the statute of limitations. Rather, it's a matter of imposing an additional obligation or requirement on someone who has actually been convicted.

In the second case, it's about changing the statute of limitations in order to prosecute someone who has not been convicted of anything.

The Washington court held that sex offender registration was regulatory rather than punitive, so the ex post facto clause did not apply. Changing a statute of limitations after it has expired exposes the accused to punishment. I think that's the distinction.

[_reflexzero]

“Man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral.”—Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “No Other Gods”

[_candygal]

“Man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral.”—Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “No Other Gods”

This man was promoted and/or assigned all over the place after several reports of misconduct...does God have morals?

[_Maureen]

A 3rd Deseret News article:

LDS Church says a second missionary made sexual abuse allegation against former MTC president.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... ident.html

M.