What is the limitation period applicable to criminal charges under the California Penal Code for a misdemeanor?

We agree that the delay here was presumptively prejudicial. The length of the delay between the filing of the complaint and the arrest of defendant far exceeded the one-year limitation period applicable to misdemeanors generally. Had there been no complaint on file this prosecution would have been statutorily barred. Statute of limitation reflect a legislative construction of the speedy trial guarantee. (Barker v. Municipal Court (1966) 64 Cal.2d 806, 812, 51 Cal.Rptr. 921, 415 P.2d 809.) Although the period of limitation for some misdemeanors which might have been charged as felonies is now three years (see 805), the one-year period of limitation for "any misdemeanor" was part of the Penal Code on its adoption in 1872. (See former 801.) A court may appropriately conclude that delays between the filing of a complaint and the arrest of a defendant which [40 Cal.3d 253] exceeds the typical one-year period of limitation generally applicable to misdemeanors are unreasonable and thus presumptively prejudicial within the contemplation of the speedy trial guarantee. "[T]he concept of a period of limitation developed in recognition of the ever increasing difficulty faced by both the government and a criminal defendant in obtaining reliable evidence (or any evidence at all) as time passes following the commission of a crime .... Other policy considerations which underlie the concept of a period of limitation vary in purpose. The possibility of self-reformation by the criminal offender may lessen the need for society to impose corrective sanctions and society's impulse for retribution may correspondingly diminish as time passes .... Finally, adoption of a period of limitation represents a legislative recognition that for all but the most serious of offenses (such as murder or kidnaping) a never-ending threat of prosecution is more detrimental to the functioning of a civilized society than it is

Page 429