State considers extending statute of limitations

Peter turned on his microphone and looked up at the semicircle of legislators before him.

The pepper-haired man took a deep breath. Then, he told them of a crime that, for 46 years, he had kept secret.

Between the ages of 8 and 16, Peter was sexually assaulted by someone he knew.

“I wasn’t able to even begin processing it until about four years ago,” he said.

Peter, who lives in Hartford County, might be able to prosecute his perpetrator if he wanted to because he was a minor when assaulted. But Connecticut’s statute of limitations on sex crimes means many victims — like Peter, who wrestled with the trauma for years before saying anything — are unable to prosecute.

Members of the Judiciary Committee are considering eliminating the five-year statute, but they are mulling over other options, too. They may extend the statute of limitations from five years to 10, or create a task force to look at what time limit would be best.

The state’s statute of limitations for felony sex crimes is one of the shortest in the nation. Exceptions to this five-year limit are class A felonies, like sex crimes against minors, or crimes with DNA evidence.

Seven states have eliminated their statutes of limitations for felony sex crimes, according to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

In a public hearing at the Capitol on Friday, advocates said Connecticut should take this step so victims have time to report these traumatic, personal crimes.

“It is not unusual for survivors to wait months, years, even decades to disclose a sexual assault due to fear and the stigmas attached to their experience,” said Sarah Holmes, a community educator for Safe Haven of Greater Waterbury, a sexual assault and domestic violence service provider, in written testimony.

She pointed to the national #MeToo movement and other headline-grabbing stories as evidence for the need for this change.

Additionally, sometimes the five-year window is not enough time to fully investigate and build a case against a perpetrator, said Ann Rodwell-Lawton, director of Education, Training and Outreach at the Women’s Center of Greater Danbury.

But lawyers say a statute of limitations is needed to preserve a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The Office of the Chief Public Defender would support a 10-year statute of limitation, Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, the Office’s legal counsel and director told the Judiciary Committee.

“Witnesses disappear, memories fade,” she said. “(The statute of limitations) has to end because it would be possible to get a fair trial for the accused.”

The Public Defender’s Office and the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut advised legislators to create a task force to study the issue, however.

The task force could “address the underlying barriers to justice for survivors:

fear of losing their jobs, that others won’t believe them, that law enforcement will not treat them with respect, of deportation for themselves or loved ones, of reliving the experience or suffering through legal proceedings or of defamation lawsuits,” wrote David McGuire, executive director of the ACLU of Connecticut.

The Judiciary Committee will likely vote on these proposals by early April.