Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 2901.13(G) tolls the statute of limitations for all offenses committed by an accused during the period when the accused purposely avoids prosecution. The tolling applies regardless of whether an indictment has been returned or whether the underlying criminal activity was known to authorities when the accused absconded. The court reversed the appellate judgment and reinstated the indictment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether former R.C. 2901.13(G) tolls the criminal statute of limitations for all offenses committed by an accused during the time the accused purposely avoids prosecution for any offense.
- Whether tolling under R.C. 2901.13(G) is limited to offenses known to authorities, charged in an existing indictment, or specifically intended by the accused when he absconds.
Holdings
- R.C. 2901.13(G) tolls the statute of limitations for all offenses committed by an accused during the time the accused purposely avoids prosecution for any offense.
- Tolling under R.C. 2901.13(G) applies regardless of whether an indictment has been returned or the underlying criminal activity has been discovered.
Key quotations
“For these reasons, we hold that R.C. 2901.13(G) tolls the statute of limitations for all offenses committed by an accused during the time when the accused purposely avoids prosecution for any offense.” (¶ 30)
“Thus, R.C. 2901.13(G) tolls the statute of limitations for all offenses committed by an accused during the time when the accused purposely avoids prosecution for any offense, regardless of whether an indictment has been returned or whether underlying criminal activity has been discovered.” (¶ 32)
Factual background
Bess sexually abused his stepdaughter from the early 1980s until 1989, and she reported the abuse to a school counselor. After learning of the investigation, Bess changed his identity and left Ohio, remaining concealed under an alias until his 2007 arrest. Authorities indicted him in 1989 for offenses against his stepdaughter; after his arrest, his stepson disclosed previously unreported abuse, leading to a second indictment. Bess sought dismissal of the second indictment under the former six-year statute of limitations.
Procedural history
The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the indictment involving offenses against Bess's stepson, concluding that Bess had not purposely avoided prosecution for those offenses. The Eighth District affirmed, holding that Bess's flight tolled limitations for offenses involving his stepdaughter but not for the later-discovered offenses involving his stepson. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the State's appeal, reversed, and remanded for further proceedings with the indictment reinstated.
Remand instructions
Reverse the Eighth District Court of Appeals' judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings with the indictment reinstated.