Institutions of Higher Education and Elementary and Secondary Schools - Title VI Coordinators
HB0109 would change Maryland’s criminal law statute of limitations for misdemeanor theft. Under current law, prosecutions for theft of property or services valued at less than $1,500 are generally subject to a three-year limitations period. This bill keeps the three-year period for thefts valued at least $100 but less than $1,500, while creating a separate, shorter two-year limitations period for thefts valued at less than $100.
The bill does not change the underlying theft offenses, penalties, or restitution requirements. It only affects how long prosecutors have to bring charges for the lowest-value misdemeanor theft cases. The effective date is October 1, 2025, which would apply the new limitations period prospectively unless otherwise provided by law.
HB0109 amends Criminal Law § 7-104(i) in the Annotated Code of Maryland by splitting the statute of limitations for misdemeanor theft into two tiers based on value. It preserves the existing three-year limitations period for thefts valued from $100 to under $1,500, and establishes a new two-year period for thefts valued under $100. The bill therefore narrows the time window for prosecution of the smallest theft cases while leaving the offense definitions, misdemeanor classifications, fines, jail terms, and restitution obligations unchanged.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be a technical criminal-law adjustment rather than a highly controversial proposal. The change is straightforward and targeted, suggesting the general posture around the bill is likely procedural and policy-focused rather than partisan. No formal votes or transcript excerpts are available here to indicate strong support or opposition.
The main policy issue is whether low-value theft cases should remain prosecutable for three years or be subject to a shorter two-year deadline. Supporters would likely view the change as a way to align prosecutorial resources with the seriousness of the offense and to encourage timely charging decisions. Potential opponents may argue that a shorter limitations period could make it harder to prosecute repeated or delayed-discovery thefts, especially in cases involving small-dollar losses that accumulate over time. No specific stakeholder objections or endorsements are included in the provided record.