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

28
Id. at 532-33 (citation and footnote omitted). The Court
concluded that “[t]he relevant question is whether the law
affects the quantum of evidence required to convict.” Id. at
551. The answer was yes with respect to the Texas statute
at issue in Carmell.
When asked in relation to a law that changes the
statute of limitations, the answer is no. A change in the
statute of limitations does nothing to alter the State’s
evidentiary burden to prove the commission of the charged
offense; it simply regulates the time at which a crime
defined and punished elsewhere may be charged. The
State still must prove the defendant’s guilt by establishing
all the elements of the charged crimes that it would have
had to prove at the time they were alleged to have been
committed, and it still must do so by proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. See People v. Frazer, 21 Cal. 4th at 760.
“The quantum and kind of proof required to establish
guilt, and all questions which may be considered by the
court and jury in determining guilt or innocence, remain
the same.” Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. at 170. Hence, this is
not the type of law that impermissibly attempts to rectify
a “deficiency of legal proof” in violation of the fourth
Calder category. Wooddeson, at 633-34, quoted in Carmell,
529 U.S. at 523-24 n.12. Indeed, it is for these same
reasons that this also is not the type of law that violates
the first Calder category, of which it is a “mirror image.”
Carmell, 529 U.S. at 533.
D. The Purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause
Are Not Implicated by a Retroactive
Change in a Statute of Limitations
As noted at the outset, the Ex Post Facto Clause
serves to assure that legislative acts give fair warning of