LAKEPORT >>An indefinite number of potential criminal cases submitted by Lake County law enforcement officials to the District Attorney’s (DA) Office have not been filed in court because their statute of limitations expired, thus preventing prosecution as disclosed in the annual Civil Grand Jury Report Final Report 2024-25, published last month.
The Grand Jury was informed prospective criminal cases submitted to the DA’s Office by the Sheriff’s Office or Lakeport and Clearlake Police Departments were being formally rejected after the applicable statute of limitations (SOL) had expired while the potential case was in the possession of the DA’s Office.
If a case is not filed within the applicable statute of limitations – the time limit for filing charges in court after a crime is committed – the DA cannot prosecute it. If the statutory period has passed when a case is filed, a motion to dismiss that case can be filed by defense counsel. The time limits vary depending on the severity of the offense, with misdemeanors typically having a one-year limit, from the time of the event and felonies a three-year limit. Certain crimes, such as murder, treason, and certain sexual offenses, have no time limit.
As an example of the types of cases rejected, The GJ Report attached an Exhibit C, which is a list of 45 cases submitted to the DA’s Office by the Sherriff’s Office that were rejected between January 2023 and November 2024 because the SOL had run out. The GJ Report further explained that staffing in the DA’s Office has varied and furthermore, that the COVID-19 Pandemic restrictions required prioritizing cases to prosecute. Cases involving persons in custody and felonies were understandably pursued first.
Still in a further appendix to the GJ Report, Lake County District Attorney Susan Krones’ office cited a March 2021 case in which after receiving investigative reports to this particular case, which then followed a review, the DA’s opinion was the case should not be filed, citing insufficient evidence. The particulars of the case were as follows, “This was a very tragic accident but there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” Krones replied. The case involved two sisters in the remote Indian Valley Reservoir.
The two needed to use a restroom at some point and then persuaded an ATV driver to provide them with a ride to a lavatory. While proceeding, the ATV driver lost control of his vehicle and one of the sisters, who sat in the lap of the other, was ejected from the vehicle and died at the scene. The suspect driver confessed to drinking alcohol an hour prior and a blood alcohol level revealed his BAL level at .017. Yet Krones’ Office explained determining the suspect’s BAL level accurately at the time of the collision, is difficult because of variety of unknown factors that could have reduced the suspect’s BAL. “Given these unknown factors I do not believe we could have proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Krones said.
Another case that was rejected was concerned with a suspected violator driving on a suspended license. The case was submitted Jan. 4, 2024 and was rejected on Jan. 19, 2025. Since the offense date was more than a year old the statute of limitations expired therefore, charges could not be filed. In yet another case, where the violator had no license, the case was submitted on Jan. 16, 2024, then rejected Jan. 20, 2025. The reason given was the case was initially assigned to a Deputy District Attorney yet subsequently handled by DA Krones, yet it too had passed the statute of limitations owing to insufficient resources to prosecute. And as a final example, a case of no license and no insurance, a case was submitted on Jan. 16, 2024 and rejected on Jan. 20, 2025, was also a case of statute of limitations had run out, owing to insufficient resources to prosecute.
Still other reasons why a case may not be filed: the victim declined to proceed, the case was civil in nature- therefore no criminal intent, the cost of prosecution was disproportionally high for the violation, lack of follow up request was not completed. And there is also, Violation of Parole VOP in lieu of Complaint. In this instance depending on the severity of the violation(s), a parole board might impose sanctions short of revocation. For instance, the board might modify the person’s parole conditions by increasing supervision levels, requiring community service hours, imposing new drug testing, or imposing time in confinement (for instance, a jail stay or time in a technical violation center). Some states set out a continuum of graduated sanctions in policy or law.
At the request of the Record-Bee, Mendocino County DA, David Eyster, weighed in and explained there is no cut and dry reason why a case could be rejected for filing. It is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. “It may be a symptom of a problem but necessarily a problem,” he said. “Rejection to file could be a sound explanation or may be an oversight.”
Under Penal Code sections 933 a-c, the DA’s office has 90 days from the printing of the report to provide responses.
