Statutes of limitation in criminal matters are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose. A particular offense should not be construed as continuing unless the explicit language of the substantive criminal statute compels such a conclusion, or the nature of the crime involved is such that the legislature must assuredly have intended that it be treated as a continuing one. State v. Hamilton, 252 Mont. 496, 502, 830 P.2d 1264, 1267 (1992).
An exception to a general statute of limitation cannot be enlarged beyond that which its plain language imports, and whenever the exception is invoked the case must unequivocally fall within it. State v. Hamilton, 252 Mont. 496, 500, 830 P.2d 1264, 1268 (1992).
Whether a specific statute of limitations applies retroactively to a defendant's alleged crime is a conclusion of law which we review for correctness. State v. Duffy, 2000 MT 186, ¶ 26, 300 Mont. 381, 6 P.3d 453.
A district court's determination that a criminal offense involves "continuous conduct" for the purposes of applying the statute of limitations is a conclusion of law which we review for correctness. State v. Mullin, 268 Mont. 214, 216, 886 P.2d 376 (1994).