|SOL: + 2 years from liberal discovery for actions based on intentional conduct subject to 20 year from majority SOR. (Age 38); + 2years from majority or narrow common law discovery for negligence
1. 12 Okl. St. § 95 (6) “An action based on intentional conduct brought by any person for recovery of damages for injury suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse incidents or exploitation as defined by Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes or incest can only be brought within the latter of the following periods: a. within two (2) years of the act alleged to have caused the injury or condition, or b. within two (2) years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by the act or that the act caused the injury for which the claim is brought. Provided, however, that the time limit for commencement of an action pursuant to this paragraph is tolled for a child until the child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years or until five (5) years after the perpetrator is released from the custody of a state, federal or local correctional facility or jail, whichever is later. No action may be brought against the alleged perpetrator or the estate of the alleged perpetrator after the death of such alleged perpetrator, unless the perpetrator was convicted of a crime of sexual abuse involving the claimant. An action pursuant to this paragraph must be based upon objective verifiable evidence in order for the victim to recover damages for injuries suffered by reason of such sexual abuse, exploitation, or incest. The evidence should include both proof that the victim had psychologically repressed the memory of the facts upon which the claim was predicated and that there was corroborating evidence that the sexual abuse, exploitation, or incest actually occurred. The victim need not establish which act in a series of continuing sexual abuse incidents, exploitation incidents, or incest caused the injury complained of, but may compute the date of discovery from the date of discovery of the last act by the same perpetrator which is part of a common scheme or plan of sexual abuse, exploitation, or incest. Provided further, any action based on intentional conduct specified in paragraph 7 of this section must be commenced within twenty (20) years of the victim reaching the age of eighteen (18);12 Okl. St. § 95
2. 12 Okl. St. § 95(3) Within two (2) years: An action for trespass upon real property; an action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property; an action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated; an action for relief on the ground of fraud — the cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud;
1. Majority, yes. Age 18. Okl. St. § 95 (6)
a. “Provided, however, that the time limit for commencement of an action pursuant to this paragraph is tolled for a child until the child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years or until five (5) years after the perpetrator is released from the custody of a state, federal or local correctional facility or jail, whichever is later.”
4. Discovery, yes. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 95(6)(b) (liberal)
a. Common law version was narrow:
|Within 12 years of “discovery” of the crime, which can occur up to victim’s age 19 (Appears to operate at SOR at age 31? Age 19 +12 years. Text: “Prosecutions for the crime of rape or forcible sodomy, sodomy, lewd or indecent proposals or acts against children, involving minors in pornography pursuant to Section 886,888, 1111, 1111.1, 1113, 1114, 1021.2, 1021.3 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, child abuse pursuant to Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and child trafficking pursuant to Section 866 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes shall be commenced within twelve (12) years after the discovery of the crime.”). 22 Okl. St. § 152 (C) (1); 22 Okl. St. § 152 (L). Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7, P1, 204 P.3d 777, 779, 2009 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9, 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (finding that the statute of limitations begins to run and the offense has been discovered for purposes of Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 152(C), when any person (including the victim) other than the wrongdoer or someone in pari delicto with the wrongdoer has knowledge of both the act and its criminal nature. The crime has not been discovered during any period that the crime is concealed because of fear induced by threats made by the wrongdoer or anyone acting in pari delicto with the wrongdoer.)
22 Okl. St. § 152 (C) (1) (“Prosecutions for the crime of rape or forcible sodomy, sodomy, lewd or indecent proposals or acts against children, involving minors in pornography pursuant to Section 886, 888, 1111, 1111.1, 1113, 1114, 1021.2, 1021.3 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, child abuse pursuant to Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and child trafficking pursuant to Section 866 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes shall be commenced within twelve (12) years after the discovery of the crime.”)
22 Okl. St. § 152 (L) (“As used in paragraph 1 of subsection C of this section, “discovery” means the date that a physical or sexually related crime involving a victim under the age of eighteen (18) years of age is reported to a law enforcement agency, up to and including one (1) year from the eighteenth birthday of the child.”)
Defendant’s prosecution for rape and forced oral sodomy involving his minor stepdaughter was not barred by the seven-year statute of limitations under Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 152, because, although more than seven years had passed since the commission of the offenses, the victim told no one about the crimes because she was afraid of defendant, who had been a police officer, and while the victim remained silent about defendant’s sexual abuse, the statute of limitations was tolled. Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7, 204 P.3d 777, 2009 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). 22 Okl. St. § 152
Trial court properly ruled that defendant’s prosecution for lewd molestation of a child was time-barred because the child victim had knowledge of the acts when they occurred, knew at the time that the acts were wrong, and was not threatened when the acts occurred; thus, defendant’s crime was “discovered” for purposes of the five-year statute of limitations when the acts occurred, and the state charged defendant with the crime over five years after the acts occurred. State v. Day, 1994 OK CR 67, 882 P.2d 1096, 1994 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 77, 65 Okla. B.J. 3388 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
SOL was changed from +7 to +12 in 2005. 2005 OK. HB 1013, 2005 OK. ALS 101, 2005 OK. Laws 101, 2005 OK. Ch. 101, 2005 OK. HB 1013
Prosecution for child sexual abuse under Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7115(E) was barred by the three-year statute of limitations that was in effect at the time the crime was committed in 1998. The fact that this section was subsequently amended to enlarge the statute of limitations for the crime to seven years did not change the result, as the amended statute did not apply retroactively. Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, 152 P.3d 244, 2006 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 53 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
22 Okl. St. § 152 (C) (2) (a)-(c) (“However, prosecutions for the crimes listed in paragraph 1 of this subsection may be commenced at any time after the commission of the offense if: a. the victim notified law enforcement within twelve (12) years after the discovery of the crime, b. physical evidence is collected and preserved that is capable of being tested to obtain a profile from deoxyearibonucleic acid (DNA), and c. the identity of the offender is subsequently established through the use of a DNA profile using evidence listed in subparagraph b of this paragraph.
A prosecution under this exception must be commenced within three (3) years from the date on which the identity of the suspect is established by DNA testing.”)