MTC President Sexually Assaulted Sister Missionaries

[_consiglieri]

For example, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a change in the requirement to register as a sex offender does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws by requiring convicts to register even though their conviction occurred prior to the passage of the registration law.

123 Wn.2d 488, STATE v. WARD

Mar. 1994

[Nos. 59542-9, 59625-5. En Banc. March 17, 1994.]

STATE v. WARD

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JEFFREY S. WARD, Appellant.
JOHN DOE PAROLEE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Norm Maleng, et al, Respondent.

Nature of Action: Defendant Ward was charged with failing to register as a sex offender. Plaintiff Doe brought an action seeking to be relieved of the duty to register as a sex offender.

Superior Court: The Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 90-1-03555-9, Frederick B. Hayes, J., entered a judgment finding defendant Ward guilty on July 9, 1991. The Superior Court for King County, No. 90-2-22708-1, Edward Heavey, J., dismissed plaintiff Doe's action on July 16, 1991.

Supreme Court: Holding that the retroactive application of the sex offender registration statute did not violate the constitutional ex post facto prohibition, that the registration requirement applies to plaintiff Doe, and that registration does not violate plaintiff Doe's rights of due process and equal protection of the laws, the court affirms the judgments.

http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/123wn2d/123wn2d0488.htm

I believe that changing the statute of limitations in Utah in 2013 to make rape have no statute of limitations is, in fact, retroactively applicable to a rape alleged to have occurred in 1984, even though in 1984 the statute of limitations was only four years.

It is not a violation of the ex-post facto provision.

[_CameronMO]

Dude's been in contact with the church 3 times, and still talks to the press. I love it!

Whatever the church is paying Kirton McConkie, IT'S TOO MUCH!

[Guest]

I missed this novel explanation from Bishop's son regarding why his father apologized on the tape and why he carries guilty feelings:

Bishop’s son, Greg Bishop, an attorney in Park City, said Thursday he won’t comment about the police report until he can get a recording of the full interview police did with his father.

He said on Wednesday that there was no sexual assault and that the woman exposed herself to his father, unsolicited, during the encounter. He said his father was apologizing in the recorded conversation for anything he did to make her feel like she could do that.

“It’s always troubled him that a woman would feel that it would be appropriate or well received or acceptable for her to bear her breasts to him,” Greg Bishop said Wednesday. “So, he’s carried some guilt about that because he didn’t think it was appropriate.”

[_candygal]

Consig, I wish that you could/would still post on MD&D...they are in much need of some legal knowledge over there..

[_Res Ipsa]

Consig, take a look at this Utah case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-court-of- ... 47513.html

[_CameronMO]

I missed this novel explanation from Bishop's son regarding why his father apologized on the tape and why he carries guilty feelings:

Bishop’s son, Greg Bishop, an attorney in Park City, said Thursday he won’t comment about the police report until he can get a recording of the full interview police did with his father.

He said on Wednesday that there was no sexual assault and that the woman exposed herself to his father, unsolicited, during the encounter. He said his father was apologizing in the recorded conversation for anything he did to make her feel like she could do that.

“It’s always troubled him that a woman would feel that it would be appropriate or well received or acceptable for her to bear her breasts to him,” Greg Bishop said Wednesday. “So, he’s carried some guilt about that because he didn’t think it was appropriate.”

A nickle's worth of free advice for Mr. Greg Bishop (who was probably receiving a free BYU J.D./MBA degree due to his father's position as MTC President when all this was happening).

[_consiglieri]

Consig, I wish that you could/would still post on MD&D...they are in much need of some legal knowledge over there..

You do know I am banned over there, right?

[_candygal]

Consig, I wish that you could/would still post on MD&D...they are in much need of some legal knowledge over there..

You do know I am banned over there, right?

Yes..I do...Just wishing is all...Duncan has asked where you are????

[_consiglieri]

Consig, take a look at this Utah case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-court-of- ... 47513.html

I stand corrected. It looks like that is the law in Utah.

¶16 “ ‘[A] statutory amendment enlarging a statute of limitations will extend the limitations period applicable to a crime already committed only if the amendment becomes effective before the previously applicable statute of limitations has run, thereby barring prosecution of the crime.’ ” State v. Green, 2005 UT 9, ¶ 20, 108 P.3d 710 (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Lusk, 2001 UT 102, ¶ 26, 37 P.3d 1103). “In other words, no subsequent amendment of a statute that enlarges a limitations period can resurrect the State's ability to prosecute a crime already barred because of the running of the statute of limitations.” Lusk, 2001 UT 102, ¶ 26, 37 P.3d 1103.

[_consiglieri]

But wait a second!

At least in the case of the Rape of a Child statute, which this case is interpreting, the triggering event for the statute of limitations to begin running is not just the commission of the offense, but the date from which the incident was reported to police!

If the first report of this was to the Provo Police last November, then the statute of limitations has most definitely not run, and the report having been made after the statute of limitations was amended would also mean that the longer statute of limitations would apply.

Even though last November would also qualify under the earlier four-year statute of limitations.

The question is whether this complaint was made to law enforcement at some time prior to November of 2017.

And whether the rape statute has similar language to that of rape of a child.

¶15 Generally, between 1998 and 2001 “a prosecution for ․ a felony ․ [had to] be commenced within four years after it [was] committed.” Id. § 76–1–302(1)(a). But “[i]f the period prescribed in Subsection 76–1–302(1) has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for ․ rape of a child, object rape of a child, sodomy upon a child, or sexual abuse of a child within four years after the report of the offense to a law enforcement agency.” Id. § 76–1–303.4 In 2008, however, the legislature repealed the section of the statute imposing a four-year statute of limitations and expanded the limitations period for aggravated sexual abuse of a child and sodomy on a child. Act of Feb. 11, 2008, ch. 129, §§ 1, 3, 2008 Utah Laws 1143, 1143–44. Specifically, the revised statute of limitations, found in Utah Code section 76–1–301(2), allows the State to commence prosecution “at any time.” Utah Code Ann. § 76–1–301(2)(m), (o) (LexisNexis Supp. 2012) (emphasis added).