Here's our situation. Def accused of aggravated robbery jumps bail in 2001. He's found in Louisiana under an alias almost 3 years later. We file bail jumping case AFTER limitations period has run but allege in the indictment that the SOL was tolled while he was out of state as per CCP Art. 12.05(a). We don't want to try the robbery now because the elderly victim died of natural causes while the def was in hiding.

Def files a Motion to Quash and at the hearing relies on Matthews 933 SW3d 134 to say that the def was not an "accused" when he left the State and therefore the SOL is not tolled while he was out of state. In Matthews, an expert witness from Arizona testified for the State here in Texas and returned home. She testified that she had a Phd in psychology. Nine years later an appellate lawyer found out she was lying about the degree and the State indicted her for aggravated perjury. They tolled the limitations period by alleging that, after the offense, she was out of State. We are arguing that our case is distinguishable because, unlike the so-called expert witness, our def did not live out of state and left the state to avoid prosecution. We are also contending that the def was "an accused" when he left the state. He just wasn't accused of bail jumping yet--only aggravated robbery.

Any thoughts? I could not find any other cases.

Most bonds that I have seen typically read, in large part,...to appear before said court...at....or upon notice by the court...and there remain from day to day and term to term, until discharged by due course of law...."

If you bond reads ...and there remain from day to day and term to term until discharged, couldn't you agrue that the offense is a continuing offense and thus the statute of limitations has not expired.

I have not run any case law on it, just a suggestion. Let me know if you find anything on it.

We were prepared to fall back on that argument and liken the offense to bigamy or theft by possession of a stolen item until we found cases which ruled that bigamy and theft by possession are not continuing offenses. Bigamy, for instance, occurs on the date of the illegal marriage so bail jumping, we fear, will take place on the date the def fails to appear in court for the trial.

From a similar discussion on this topic: "I find no case law to answer the issue of whether the "fails to appear" language continues to attach liability beyond a single date. Failure to provide support has been interpreted as a continuing offense. And the bond (conditions of release) usually talks about remaining before the court from day to day and term to term until discharged. The bond must state the defendant is bound to appear "at any time . . . when his presence may be required". Once the defendant has missed his known court date (recognizes his status as a fugitive) can he not be accused of violating 38.10 intentionally or knowingly at all times thereafter? That was the holding of the Nevada Supreme Court in Woolsey, 906 P.2d 723." See Statute of Limitations and Bail Jumping