Suppose someone commits a felony. They flee out of state, thus making them also guilty of fleeing to avoid prosecution. Thirty years later, the statute of limitations expires on their original felony, and I presume the original count of fleeing by that time as well. My question is, can any subsequent moves across state lines while a fugitive be considered new counts of fleeing to avoid prosecution? Even if the authorities have completely lost the trail, and the moves aren’t motivated by a desire to avoid the law?
2 things. The first and most important is a warrant will be issued for the arrest of the person. Criminal warrants do not have statutes of limitations. Second, when the alledged criminal crossed the state lines, the SOL is suspended. A few years ago a fellow was arrested in my state on a 50 year old warrant from Oregon. I never heard what happened after that though.
Ah, then that pretty much overrides the premise of the OP. Thanks.
Correct. Fleeing the court’s jurisdiction tolls the time for speedy-trial and statute of limitations purposes. A bench warrant will keep indefinitely.
Hope you’re not getting too tired of Minnesota, Lumpy!
But I’m still unclear: so there’s a warrant still out, but what about the crimes? Either the original felony or the fleeing charge? After your rear does get hauled in, are they still prosecutable?
Yes. The statute of limitations is intended to ensure that the state doesn’t dither, not to reward a slippery defendant.
IANAL, but there’s a critical part missing in your story, which is the indictment. If someone commits a felony and leaves the state, if they have not been indicted, the statute of limitations applies.
However, once they have been indicted, the SOL goes out the window, and there is no time limit.
w.