01-1311 State v. Haines

Listen to this article

There is no ex post facto violation in applying the amended limitation period to defendant because, on its face, the amendment did not remove a defense that was available to defendant in 1992.

“Indeed, such ‘defense’ would not have been available until 1999, when the former statute of limitations would have run.

“Although no Wisconsin case addresses the circumstances here, several federal circuit courts and state courts have concluded that retroactive application of a new statute of limitations, enacted at a time when the old limitations period has not yet run, does not violate the ex post facto clause. These cases are persuasive authority because the Wisconsin Supreme Court, like the courts cited in footnote 4 below, has relied on the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the ex post facto clause contained in the United States Constitution to interpret our own ex post facto clause.”

Reversed and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Vernon County, Rosborough, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: William L. Gansner, Madison; Robert E. Krambs, Viroqua

For Respondent: Mark A. Huesmann, Holmen