State v. Hunter

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 08-07-2013
  • Case #: A149292
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; and Hadlock, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

If an act of an alleged crime occurred within the limitations period then the indictment for the alleged crime is facially sufficient.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for six counts of first-degree aggravated theft. Defendant argued that two of the six counts were barred by a three year statute of limitations. Defendant was indicted in May of 2010. Count 1 of the indictment alleged that Defendant unlawfully and knowingly committed theft of cash, between the time of August and January of 2007. Count 2 alleged the same for the months of February to July of 2007. According to ORS 131.125(6-7), cases involving felony theft must be filed within three years unless the theft involves a material element of either fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeals dismissed Count 1 in its entirety because the theft did not contain an element of fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. As to Count 2, Defendant argued that because part of the time period specified in the indictment was barred by the statute of limitations, that her conviction under that count of the indictment should be dismissed as well. However, the Court of Appeals held that the indictment, on its face, was sufficient to show that Defendant’s crime was committed within the statute of limitations. Accordingly, Defendant’s conviction under Count 2 was affirmed. Conviction on Count 1 Reversed; Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search