DONNA McOUALITY, CLERK {a Offices of John M. Sears, PC NIGHT DEPOSITORY SUE Guy Suse 2011 JUN TG AM 942 Ca 1 S08 SYOUNT ‘Attorney for Defendant wv. In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the County of Yavapai STATE OF ARIZONA, No. P1300CR201600966 Plaintiff, Assigned to Hon. Bradley H. Astrowsky MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT AS BAI BY THE STATUTE OF PIMLTATIONS AND TO, DECLARE ARS. §13-107(D) UNCONSTITUTIONAL vs. (Oral Argument Requested) THOMAS JONATHAN CHANTRY, Defendant. Defendant, THOMAS JONATHAN CHANTRY, through his counsel undersigned, hereby moves this Court for an Order dismissing Counts Six, Seven and Eight of the Indictment because they are barred by the Arizona statute of limitations. This motion is supported by the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution and its counterparts in the Arizona Constitution, the Arizona Rules of Evidence, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.oo DATED THIS __|® ~ day of June, 2017 By: JohirM. Sears, Attorney for Defendant MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Statutes of limitations exist to prevent stale prosecutions from going forward because memories fade, witnesses become unavailable, and evidence disappears. United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 122 (1966) (cited in Commonwealth v. Arnold, 331 Pa, Super. 345, 360, 480 A.2d 1066, 1074 (1984). A challenge to a statute of limitations is subjected to rational basis review. Rational basis review requires that the statute is, “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest. Vong v. Aune, 235 Ariz. 116, 119 § 17, 328 P.3d 1057, 1060 (Ct. App. 2014) (citing Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993)). The legislature is granted great deference by the courts under rational basis review. Jd, Courts have found there is a legitimate purpose in “investigating and prosecuting crime.” E.g., Commonwealth v. George, 430 Mass. 276, 283, 717 N.E.2d 1285, 1290 (1999). Because the function of statutes of limitations are to prevent stale prosecutions prior to indictment, it is irrational to have a statute of limitations that does nothing to prevent overly stale prosecutions. Here, there is a potential that someone could use the discovery rule to wait years until there is no possible way that person could defend themselves and pursue a charge. Therefore, the Arizona statute of limitations does not do its job of preventing overly stale prosecutions because the limitation period does 2not begin until someone comes forward. While one can respond that some crimes like murder and child sexual abuse often do not have limitation periods, there is a stronger interest in not barring particularly heinous crimes. Under Arizona law, the statute of limitation period in criminal cases begins to run “afier actual discovery by the state or the political subdivision having jurisdiction of the offense or discovery by the state or political subdivision that should have occurred with the exercise of reasonable diligence, whichever occurs first.” A.R.S.§ 13-107(b). In other words, this is “the date the authorities knew or should have known the offense was committed.” Taylor v, Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40, 45, 148 P.3d 84, 89 (Ct. App. 2006). Discovery must be by the state or a political subdivision “with jurisdiction over the offense.” State v. Escobar-Mendez, 195 Ariz. 194 § 16, 198, 986 P.2d 227, 231 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding that Maricopa county hospital was not a political subdivision and that disclosure requirements on doctors to disclose potential sexual abuse of children under the age of fourteen did not constitute discovery after delivery of a child by a thirteen- year-old-girl. The clear purpose of the statutes of limitations in Arizona are to protect people from stale, cold allegations. This is not a case where the victims remained silent, it is one where the reporting system failed to work properly. Here, the events in the three separate counts involving allegations of aggravated assault on a child under the age of fifteen years are said to have taken place between July, 1995 and May, 2000. In late 2000, these same allegations were part of a church-led