Facts
In 2021, Sylvestor Begay was charged with sex offenses against a child that would have occurred in 1996 or 1997 when Begay was twenty-two years old. Begay filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the statute of limitations at the time of the offenses would have begun when a report was made to law enforcement in 1998, and subsequently expired in 2002. The district court disagreed and denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the conversation with law enforcement in 1998 did not constitute a “report of the offense” based on the three-part test outlined by the Utah Supreme Court. Begay appealed and the Utah Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s decision for correctness.
Analysis
The three-part test for evaluating whether a “report of the offense” occurred includes: 1. an identifiable oral/written communication; 2. that is intended to inform law enforcement that a crime was committed; and 3. actually communicates information relating to the elements of a crime to the law enforcement agency. The “report” in question in this case occurred in 1998 when a friend of “Laura” (pseudonym of victim) informed law enforcement that she (Friend) had been sexually assaulted by Begay, and that Begay was also having sex with Laura who was a minor. Friend provided law enforcement with Laura’s full name and birthdate. The parties in this case agree that this conversation satisfied the first element of the three-part test, constituting an identifiable oral/written communication to law enforcement.
Ruling
The Court of Appeals ruled that the second element of the test was also met, given Friend’s specific intent at the end of the interview to inform law enforcement that a crime was also committed against Laura. Friend had made an earlier statement to the district court that her general intent in speaking with law enforcement was only to report a crime that had been committed against herself. The Court of Appeals reasoned however that when Friend gave Laura’s full name to law enforcement, and stated that Begay was having sex with Laura she had gained the specific intent to report a crime committed against Laura as well.
The Court of Appeals ruled further that the third element of the test was met as Friend had provided law enforcement with actual information relating to the elements of a crime during the report. The Court stated that it would not have been necessary for Friend to reference specific codes or statutes while reporting the crime, however the report must be based on more than mere hints or clues that a crime has occurred. Friend had informed law enforcement that Begay was having sex with Laura immediately after answering specific questions and reporting that she (Friend) had been sexually assaulted by Begay. Friend stated further that Begay was doing to Laura the same things that he had done to her (Friend).
In this context Friend’s statement that Begay was “having sex” with Laura can be seen as referring to the same conduct and offense that Friend had already thoroughly reported regarding herself. Given that Friend gave law enforcement Laura’s birthdate, the officers would have also known that Laura was a minor and a crime had occurred. As all three elements of the test were satisfied, the Court of Appeals concluded that a “report of an offense” had been made in 1998, with the statute of limitations expiring in 2002 without charges being filed. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and instructed them to dismiss the charges.