Maryland Public Ethics Law - Financial Disclosure Statements - State Officials of and Candidates to be a State Official of the Judicial Branch
HB0269 changes the criminal statute of limitations for certain petty theft offenses under Maryland law. Under current law, prosecutions for theft of property or services valued at less than $1,500 are generally subject to a two-year limitations period. This bill keeps the two-year period for thefts valued at least $100 but less than $1,500, but creates a longer three-year limitations period for thefts valued at less than $100.
The bill does not change the underlying penalties for petty theft. Theft of property or services valued at less than $100 remains a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $500, or both, along with restitution to the victim. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025, and would amend Section 7-104 of the Criminal Law Article in the Annotated Code of Maryland.
HB0269 would amend Maryland’s criminal theft statute by extending the time prosecutors have to bring charges for the lowest-value theft offenses. Specifically, it changes the limitations period in Criminal Law § 7-104(i) so that thefts under $100 may be prosecuted within three years instead of two, while leaving the two-year limit in place for thefts valued at $100 to less than $1,500. The bill affects prosecutors, defendants, and victims in petty theft cases, but it does not alter the offense classification, fines, jail terms, or restitution requirements.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be a straightforward criminal-law adjustment with no recorded committee debate or vote opposition in the provided materials. The absence of transcripts or vote details suggests there was little documented controversy in the available context. The measure was introduced and assigned to the Judiciary Committee and later returned passed in the House, indicating at least procedural support for the change.
The main policy issue is whether the state should give prosecutors more time to file charges for very low-value thefts. Supporters would likely view the longer three-year window as helpful for investigating minor thefts that may not be discovered quickly, while critics could argue that extending the limitations period increases exposure for defendants and weakens the finality that statutes of limitations are meant to provide. No specific stakeholder objections or amendments are reflected in the provided transcripts or vote history.