California Supreme Court: People vs. Frazer

The case began on October 21, 1996, when the Mendocino County District Attorney charged Raymond Lawrence Frazer with one count of lewd conduct with a child under age 14. The complaint alleged that Frazer had molested a girl (identified by the prosecutor only as ôJessica F.ö to protect her identity) between the dates of October 1, 1984 and December 31, 1984. The crime carried a sentence of three to eight years in prison.

Traditionally, such charges would have been ôtime barred,ö i.e., the prosecutor could not have brought the case because the statute of limitations had expired. Indeed, in California, the statute of limitations for offenses of this kind (crimes with a possible sentence of eight years in prison) is six years. That limitation, however, allows numerous acts of molestation to go unpunished. This is because, as the California Supreme Court noted, ôyoung victims often delay reporting sexual abuse because they are easily manipulated by offenders in positions of authority and trust, and because children have difficulty remembering the crime or facing the trauma it can cause.ö As a result, many molesters never face legal sanction,

. . .
pired on December 31, 1990, and second, retroactive application would amount to an ex post facto law in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Municipal Court judge held in Frazer's favor and dismissed the charge, finding that the law as enacted did not affect crimes before January 1, 1994. (The judge ignored the amendment that applied the law retroactively.) The District Attorney appealed to the Superior Court, which accepted the state's statutory interpretation but still held for Frazer because it found the retroactive application of Section 803(g) constituted an ex post facto law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's decision on that ground, so the District Attorney appealed to the California Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, the defendant dropped his first argument, conceding that the statute, as written and amended, permitted prosecution of him because the indictment had been secured within one year of the victim's report to the police. Nonetheless, the Court discussed the issue at length, presumably to end the confusion in the lower courts concerning Section 803(g). The Court found that the amendments and the clear legislative intent demonstrated the applicability of Section 803(g) to crimes committe
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Youngblood Collins, Nonetheless Court, Supreme Court, Specifically Legislature, Court Appeals, Lawrence Frazer, California Constitution, Beazell Ohio, People Frazer, Municipal Court, section 803g, statute limitations, supreme court, post facto, ex post, ex post facto, california supreme, california supreme court, january 1 1994, due process, 1 1994, january 1, retroactive application, statute limitations expired, post facto law,
Approximate Word count = 1365
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)

More Essays on California Supreme Court: People vs. Frazer