Legal Opinion

State v. Ricker

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 15, 1991No. 90-02-1368, 90-02-1369, 90-02-1370; CA A65325, A65326, A65327PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant was charged with two counts of theft I, ORS 164.055, and one count of theft II. ORS 164.045. The three-year Statute of Limitations of ORS 131.125(5) had run. Nevertheless, the state argued that the limitation period was subject to ORS 131.125(6)(a), because the indictment alleged that defendant had breached a fiduciary duty that he owed the victims. Defendant filed a demurrer to the indictment, which the trial court sustained. The state appeals and we affirm.

ORS 131.125(6)(a) provides, in part:

“If the offense has as a material element either fraud or the breach of a fiduciary…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bell v. Klamath CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  2. State v. MillsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Monfore v. PerssonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  2. State v. NistlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  3. State v. HunterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API