Error and/or relief
One of the defendant’s counts must be vacated because it was time-barred.
First Holding:
There is a three-year statute of limitations for reckless indifference to an animal’s suffering.
Authority:
PEN 597(b) and (d)
PEN 801
Second Holding:
There is a relation-back provision, meaning a prosecutor could file charges late if they involved the same conduct alleged in charges that were timely filed. (Former sec. 803, subd. (b) [eff. Jan. 2018].) The relation-back provision suspends the running of the statute of limitation only for the conduct underlying a charged offense but does not stop the running of the statute of limitation on completely separate instances of criminal conduct.
In other words, the relation-back provision does not function as a categorical exception to the running of the applicable limitation period for the entire class of same or similar criminal acts allegedly committed by a defendant during the same time frame as an offense charged in a pending prosecution.
Authority:
People v. Terry (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 750, 769
Third Holding:
The defendant requests that, on remand, he should be granted leave to file a motion for new trial on the grounds that the jury may have been influenced by the evidence presented on the time-barred-now-vacated count.
A motion for new trial must be made and determined before the making of an order granting probation. The defendant has been granted probation. The trial court lack jurisidiction to rule on a motion for new trial.
Authority:
People v. Martin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 615, 618