In recent years, cases of child victims of rape and other forms of sexual abuse coming forward to press charges years later as adults have garnered considerable attention. Among the issues such cases raise are to what degree it is possible to have a fair trial years after an alleged assault took place. In a ruling March 15, the N.C. Court of Appeals held such prosecutions are lawful and do not violate due process rights.

In late 2003, Jerry Stanford was convicted of rape, sex offense, and taking indecent liberties with a minor. The victim was his niece, and the crimes occurred over a six-month period in 1987, when she was 13 or 14 years old. Though she had mentioned the attacks over the years to some family members and close friends, she did not report the crimes to the police until September 2002. Stanford was indicted a month later.

On appeal, Stanford argued that his constitutional due-process rights were violated by the 15-year gap between when the crimes occurred and when he was charged. The Court of Appeals, like the trial court before it, was not persuaded.

“The gravamen of defendant’s argument is that this case is too stale to prosecute. He argues that the limited pre-indictment due process protection is similar in application to a statute of limitations,” wrote Judge Rick Elmore for the appellate court.

“To the extent that this argument has any merit, it is undercut by the fact that this State has no statute of limitations on the crimes of rape, sex offense, or indecent liberties. Whether we should have one is a question for our General Assembly, not for this Court. And, to judicially carve out a time period in which a felony becomes too stale to prosecute, under the guise of due process, is an act of construction we choose not to engage in.”

The appeals court also rejected Stanford’s contention that his rights to a speedy trial had been violated. The right to a speed trial applies only after one is accused, and as the court noted, “It is inconceivable that the State could delay indictment of an offense it knew nothing about.”

The Court of Appeals did, however, overturn Stanford’s indecent-liberty conviction, finding the evidence presented at trial insufficient as a matter of law.

The case is State v. Stanford, (04-637).