No. 01-1757 Stogner v. California - FindLaw: Supreme Court Center

2
applied retroactively; others opined it would violate ex post
facto principles. Still other courts found no statutory or
constitutional bar to applying the statute retroactively. See
People v. Frazer, 21 Cal. 4th 737, 745-46 & nn.5-8, 982
P.2d 180 (1999) (discussing history of the provision), cert.
denied, 529 U.S. 1108 (2000).
In 1996, the California Legislature responded to those
courts that were reluctant to apply the statute retroactively.
By nearly unanimous vote, the Legislature
amended section 803(g) to expressly state its intention
that the law be applied retroactively. The amendment also
made explicit the Legislature’s intent to revive previouslyexpired
causes of action if the requirements of section
803(g) were met. See People v. Frazer, 21 Cal. 4th at 746-
47; see also infra notes 6 and 7 and accompanying text.
Three years later, in People v. Frazer, 21 Cal. 4th 737,
the California Supreme Court addressed the questions of
whether retroactive application of section 803(g), on its
face, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause or the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution or the California
Constitution. That Court held that retroactive application
of the statute was not barred as a matter of either federal
or state constitutional law. A retroactive change in the
statute of limitations, the court found, does not fall within
one of the four proscribed categories of laws that violates
ex post facto principles. The expiration of a statute of
limitations also confers no fundamental right, and, because
California Penal Code section 803(g) is well-suited to
addressing the serious concerns that prompted the statute,
it does not violate substantive due process. The defendant’s
protection from the prejudicial loss of evidence, if
any, the court held, would come from procedural due