militate against absolute adherence to archaic rules, Tucker held that the failure to allege venue is not fundamental and may not be urged on appeal unless first raised in the trial court. Id. I believe that a similar reassessment of the statute of limitations pleading requirements, and their longstanding characterization as “jurisdictional facts,” leads to the very same conclusion reached by the Florida Supreme Court in Tucker. 5, The non-jurisdictional nature of the statute of limitations This view finds further support in the fact that the court in Tucker (addressing the second issue raised in that case) expressly held that a defendant can validly waive the statute of limitations defense under certain circumstances. Id. See also Sturdivan v. State, 419 So.2d 300, 302 (Fla. 1982) (<HOLDING>) Such a view has been espoused by the district
holding if the state does not allege in the charging document the tolling of the statute in an otherwise sufficient information or indictment a defendant may by his actions waive this defense holding that failure to identify the defendant in the information is an omission of an essential element because the primary purpose of the charging document is to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations brought against him holding that in determining whether the defendant has a prior conviction for burglary under the armed career criminal act the federal court may look only to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant or to some comparable judicial record of this information holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint