## Facts

- A juvenile complaint charged B.H. with delinquency based on an alleged assault and battery that would constitute a disorderly persons offense if committed by an adult.
- The alleged assault occurred on March 10, 1969.
- The juvenile complaint was filed on March 11, 1970.
- B.H. moved to dismiss, arguing the one-year limitations period for disorderly persons complaints barred the proceeding.
- The State conceded the filing was more than one year after the event but argued the disorderly persons limitations statute does not apply in juvenile delinquency matters.
- Court rules required juvenile matters to be instituted by written complaint, and the court addressed the motion as a limitations question.

## Issues

1. Whether the one-year statute of limitations governing disorderly persons prosecutions applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings based on conduct that would be a disorderly persons offense if committed by an adult.
2. If the disorderly persons limitations period applies, whether a complaint filed on March 11, 1970 for conduct on March 10, 1969 is untimely under New Jersey time-computation rules.

## Decision

- The court denied the juvenile’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held the one-year disorderly persons limitations statute does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings.
- The court noted that, if the disorderly persons limitations period applied, the complaint would have been filed one day late under the applicable method of computing limitation periods.

## Legal Principles

- At common law there was no limitations period for prosecutions; time bars exist only by legislative enactment and are not applied absent a clear statutory directive.
- A statute limiting prosecution for disorderly persons offenses applies by its terms to prosecutions under that scheme and is not incorporated into juvenile delinquency proceedings without express legislative action.
- Juvenile delinquency proceedings are treated as civil and protective in nature (parens patriae), and an adjudication of delinquency is not a criminal conviction.
- Because the juvenile statute contained no time limitation for delinquency complaints, the court declined to extend an adult limitations period by implication.
- When computing a statutory limitations period, the offense date is excluded and the final day is included unless it is a non-business legal day.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the delinquency proceeding to go forward because the Legislature had not imposed a limitations period for juvenile delinquency complaints, and the one-year time bar for disorderly persons prosecutions could not be imported into juvenile proceedings absent explicit statutory direction.


In re B.H., 112 N.J. Super. 1, 270 A.2d 72 (N.J. Super. Ct. Juv. & Dom. Rel. Ct. 1970)