
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the amended accusation did not relate back to the original accusation and that the State was not required to plead the COVID-19 tolling provision in the amended accusation. The Court reasoned that the amended accusation substantially amended the original accusation by alleging a different subsection of the DUI statute and relying on different evidence. The Court also held that the COVID-19 tolling provision was not an exception to the statute of limitation that had to be specifically alleged in the amended accusation be and did not have to be proved at trial.
The Court’s decision is based on the principle that statutes of limitation are designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time. The Court also found that the COVID-19 tolling provision was not an exception to the statute of limitation that had to be expressly pled in the accusation because COVID emergency order stated that it was presumptive notice to public, courts, media and counsel. Therefore, the State had an additional 122 days to file their accusation.
The Court’s decision is important because it clarifies the law on the interplay between statutes of limitation and tolling provisions. It is also interesting because it implies that accusations filed before the COVID emergency are only entitled to a 122 day extension and not a 471 days extension for cases that occurred between March 14, 2020 and June 30, 2021. The decision also provides guidance to prosecutors and defense attorneys on how to comply with the law when filing amended accusations.
Contact us today to schedule a consultation.