Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.145

When time starts to run; tolling of statute

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      131.145 When time starts to run; tolling of statute. (1) For the purposes of ORS 131.125, time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed.

      (2) Except as provided in ORS 131.155, the period of limitation does not run during:

      (a) Any time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this state; or

      (b) Any time when the accused hides within the state so as to prevent process being served upon the accused.

      (3) If, when the offense is committed, the accused is out of the state, the action may be commenced within the time provided in ORS 131.125 after the coming of the accused into the state. [1973 c.836 §8; 1987 c.158 §19]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Gray
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gray (2017) orctapp · cites it 2× “125(8)(a), 7 and “starts to run on the day after the offense is committed,” ORS 131.145(1). On appeal, defendant argues that any theft that he may have committed was committed within the meaning of ORS 131.”
Abbott v. Baldwin (2001) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 131.145, enacted in 1973, provides only two exceptions to the running of a criminal statute of limitations: “(2) Except as providedin ORS 131.”
State v. Forsyth (2008) orctapp · cites it 3× “ORS 131.145(1). The limitation period is tolled “(a) [a] ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this state; or “(b) [a]ny time when the accused hides within the state so as to prevent process being served upon the accused.”
State v. Washington (2014) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 131.145(1). However, that period tolls while the suspect resides out-of-state.”
State v. Chatfield (1997) orctapp · cites it 10× “The state relies first on ORS 131.145, which provides that, for the purpose of calculating a criminal statute of limitations, time calculations begin the day after the offense was committed.”
State v. Hinkle (2009) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 131.145 states that the period of limitation starts to run on the day after the offense is committed, except that the period does not run when the suspect resides out of state.”
State v. Livingston (1985) orctapp · cites it 3× “For the purpose of computing the limitation period, the “time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed,” ORS 131.145(1), except that the period of limitation is tolled during “[a]ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this…”
State v. Stokes (2011) or “Under ORS 131.145(2)(a), the limitation period is tolled “[a]ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this state[.”
State v. Kuznetsov (2008) or “” See ORS 131.145(2) (“the period of limitation does not run during * * * [a]ny time when the accused hides within the state so as to prevent process being served upon the accused”).”
State v. Barnes (1984) orctapp “The state argues that defendant “secreted” herself within the state to prevent being served, and so the statute of limitations is tolled by ORS 131.145(2)(b). We find no merit in this claim.”
State v. Pirouzkar (1989) orctapp “Contrary to what defendant argues, ORS 131.145(2)(a) and ORS 131.155 are inapplicable here.”
State v. Gerlach (2013) orctapp “…In Rose, the statute of limitations was tolled for an additional three years because the defendant was out of state. ORS 131.145(2)(a); ORS 131.155.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.145(1) — 7 cases
State v. Gray (2017) orctapp “125(8)(a), 7 and “starts to run on the day after the offense is committed,” ORS 131.145(1). On appeal, defendant argues that any theft that he may have committed was committed within the meaning of ORS 131.”
State v. Washington (2014) orctapp “ORS 131.145(1). However, that period tolls while the suspect resides out-of-state.”
State v. Forsyth (2008) orctapp “ORS 131.145(1). The limitation period is tolled “(a) [a] ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this state; or “(b) [a]ny time when the accused hides within the state so as to prevent process being served upon the accused.”
State v. Williams (2009) orctapp
State v. Livingston (1985) orctapp “For the purpose of computing the limitation period, the “time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed,” ORS 131.145(1), except that the period of limitation is tolled during “[a]ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.145(2) — 3 cases
State v. Kuznetsov (2008) or “” See ORS 131.145(2) (“the period of limitation does not run during * * * [a]ny time when the accused hides within the state so as to prevent process being served upon the accused”).”
State v. Forsyth (2008) orctapp “ORS 131.145(1). The limitation period is tolled “(a) [a] ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this state; or “(b) [a]ny time when the accused hides within the state so as to prevent process being served upon the accused.”
State v. McMillan (2018) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.145(2)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Washington (2014) orctapp “ORS 131.145(1). However, that period tolls while the suspect resides out-of-state.”
State v. Stokes (2011) or “Under ORS 131.145(2)(a), the limitation period is tolled “[a]ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this state[.”
State v. Forsyth (2008) orctapp “ORS 131.145(1). The limitation period is tolled “(a) [a] ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this state; or “(b) [a]ny time when the accused hides within the state so as to prevent process being served upon the accused.”
State v. Pirouzkar (1989) orctapp “Contrary to what defendant argues, ORS 131.145(2)(a) and ORS 131.155 are inapplicable here.”
State v. Gerlach (2013) orctapp “…In Rose, the statute of limitations was tolled for an additional three years because the defendant was out of state. ORS 131.145(2)(a); ORS 131.155.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.145(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Barnes (1984) orctapp “The state argues that defendant “secreted” herself within the state to prevent being served, and so the statute of limitations is tolled by ORS 131.145(2)(b). We find no merit in this claim.”
State v. Livingston (1985) orctapp “For the purpose of computing the limitation period, the “time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed,” ORS 131.145(1), except that the period of limitation is tolled during “[a]ny time when the accused is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within this…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.145(3) — 1 case
Abbott v. Baldwin (2001) orctapp “ORS 131.145, enacted in 1973, provides only two exceptions to the running of a criminal statute of limitations: “(2) Except as providedin ORS 131.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.