The court holds that the January 3, 2002 amendment to the criminal statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6, does not apply retroactively to an offense when the limitations period in effect when the offense was committed had expired. Accordingly, the court reverses an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss an April 2022 criminal complaint charging him with a May 1990 second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(2). The criminal statute of limitations in effect in May 1990 provided that a prosecution for a sexual assault had to be commenced "within five years after it is committed." N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6(b)(1) (1989).
Effective January 3, 2002, the statute was amended to carve out an exception for circumstances in which the prosecution includes DNA or fingerprint evidence. L. 2001, c. 308, § 1. The amendment provides that the limitations period "does not start to run until the State is in possession of both the physical evidence and the DNA or fingerprint evidence necessary to establish the identification of the actor by means of comparison to the physical evidence." The State argued that the 2002 amendment "tolled" the running of the statute of limitations related to defendant's May 1990 alleged sexual assault until May 2021, when it collected DNA from defendant.
The court rejects the State's construction of the 2002 amendment. The court's interpretation of the amendment as applying prospectively avoids a violation of the ex post facto clauses of both the federal and New Jersey constitutions. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1; N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 3. The court, therefore, reverses the order denying defendant's motion and remands with direction that the trial court enter an order dismissing, with prejudice, the criminal complaint in this matter.
