Time limitations
Source:
Section 131.125 — Time limitations, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors131.html
.
See also annotations under ORS 131.110 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Where warrant for defendant’s arrest for unlawfully obtaining public assistance was executed three years and four months from date of alleged offense and state offered no reason for delay, indictment should have been dismissed. State v. Barnes, 66 Or App 896, 676 P2d 344 (1984)
Indictment containing two dates on which purportedly returned, one inside and one outside statute of limitations, does not satisfy statutory requirement that indictment show prosecution was commenced within period of limitation. State v. Bovee, 76 Or App 572, 710 P2d 786 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant pleaded no contest to and was convicted of driving under influence of intoxicants in 1980 and in 1986 sought and was awarded post-conviction relief from that judgment, state’s subsequent decision to continue prosecution was not barred by statute of limitations. State v. Sisneros, 84 Or App 306, 734 P2d 355 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
This section barred prosecution for theft completed more than three years before commencement of prosecution where state produced no evidence that defendant retained some form of interest in or control over the stolen property after possession was given to third-party purchaser, even though final payment was made by third party within three years of filing information. State v. Bailey, 94 Or App 767, 767 P2d 114 (1989)
Where Oregon State Bar complained to court in 1985 and 1987 that defendant was violating injunction for unauthorized practice of law by activities beginning in 1981, some of Bar’s complaints may have been barred by laches since two years is presumptively reasonable period for initiating criminal contempt action for violations of court order. Oregon State Bar v. Wright, 309 Or 37, 785 P2d 340 (1990)
1989 amendments that extended statute of limitations from three to six years for certain offenses did not operate retroactively to revive cases barred from prosecution by operation of prior law. State v. Tyler, 108 Or App 378, 815 P2d 1289 (1991); State v. Cookman, 127 Or App 283, 873 P2d 335 (1994), aff’d 324 Or 19, 920 P2d 1086 (1996)
Amendment of this section that extended statute of limitations for certain misdemeanors from two to four years did not violate constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws when applied to case where two-year period of limitations had not yet expired upon effective date of amendment. State v. Dufort, 111 Or App 515, 827 P2d 192 (1992)
Listing of sexual offense by both description and current ORS number makes described offense charged under former ORS number subject to same statute of limitations as if charged under current ORS number. State v. Sharp, 151 Or App 122, 949 P2d 1230 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Reporting of offense does not occur until actual communication, through oral or written narration, of facts that form basis for offense. State v. Hutchison, 176 Or App 363, 31 P3d 1123 (2001); State v. Eladem, 290 Or App 212, 414 P3d 426 (2018), Sup Ct review denied
“Other governmental agency” means agency with investigative responsibility or having statutory duty to report sexual offense to agency with investigative responsibility. State v. Walker, 192 Or App 535, 86 P3d 690 (2004), Sup Ct review denied
Where statute of limitations is extended before statute of limitations applicable at time of offense has expired, application of extended statute of limitations to offense does not constitute ex post facto law. State v. Harberts, 198 Or App 546, 108 P3d 1201 (2005), Sup Ct review denied
Extended limitation period for commencing prosecution based on misconduct in office by public officer or employee applies only where limitation period under catch-all provision has expired. State v. Tannehill, 341 Or 205, 141 P3d 584 (2006)
General three-year limitation period for charging felony applies to charge of attempted rape. Lamb v. Coursey, 238 Or App 647, 243 P3d 130 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
For purposes of extending statute of limitations, theft by deception is offense involving material element of fraud. Monfore v. Persson, 296 Or App 625, 439 P3d 519 (2019)