State v. Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., L.P.A

In State v. Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., L.P.A., 85 Ohio St.3d 582, 1999 Ohio 408, 709 N.E.2d 1192, the Ohio Supreme Court, however, rejected the State's contention that R.C. 2901.13(F) tolled the statute of limitations. The Court declined to apply R.C. 2901.13(F) to alleged offenses that were discovered within the statute of limitations, stating that "if we were to apply subsection (F) as urged by the state, thereby affording it two years from the discovery of the offense to begin prosecution, the purposes and principles governing criminal statutes of limitations would be defeated." Climaco at 587. The Court added that, "this is glaringly evident here, considering the facts produced in the record." Id. The court did not explain when R.C. 2901.13(F) would be applicable. The dissent in Climaco disagreed with the Court's holding in regard to R.C. 2901.13(F), stating that the majority read the governing two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanors "in isolation" and "in doing so, disregarded the clear statutory language employed by the General Assembly in R.C. 2901.13(F)." Climaco at 589 (Moyer, C.J., dissenting; Cook, J., concurring in dissenting opinion.) The Ohio Supreme Court explained the rationale behind the statute of limitations in State v. Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., L.P.A., 85 Ohio St.3d 582, 1999 Ohio 408, 709 N.E.2d 1192, as follows: "The primary purpose of a criminal statute of limitations is to limit exposure to prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the General Assembly has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Toussie v. United States (1970), 397 U.S. 112, 114-115, 90 S.Ct. 858, 860, 25 L.Ed.2d 156, 161. This 'limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past.' Id. Additionally, such a time limit has the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials to promptly investigate suspected criminal activity. Id. We recognized these purposes in Hensley, where we found that the intent of R.C. 2901.13 is to discourage inefficient or dilatory law enforcement rather than to give offenders the chance to avoid criminal responsibility for their conduct. The Court stated, 'the rationale for limiting criminal prosecutions is that they should be based on reasonably fresh, and therefore more trustworthy evidence,' quoting the Ohio Legislative Service Commission comment to R.C. 2901.13." Climaco at 586.