Criminal Law - Misdemeanor Theft - Statute of Limitations
Summary
HB109 changes the statute of limitations for certain misdemeanor theft offenses in Maryland. Under current law, prosecutions for theft of property or services valued at less than $1,500 must generally be brought within three years. This bill keeps the three-year limitations period for thefts valued at least $100 but less than $1,500, while shortening the limitations period for thefts valued at less than $100 to two years.
The bill does not change the underlying theft penalties or restitution requirements. It only amends Criminal Law § 7-104(i) to separate the limitations periods by theft value category and applies the new rule to prosecutions beginning October 1, 2025. In practical terms, it gives prosecutors more time to file charges for mid-level misdemeanor thefts while reducing the time available for very low-value theft cases.
Impact
HB109 amends Maryland Criminal Law § 7-104(i) by creating two different limitations periods for misdemeanor theft prosecutions: three years for thefts valued at $100 to under $1,500, and two years for thefts valued at under $100. The bill leaves intact the existing misdemeanor classifications, penalties, and restitution obligations in § 7-104(g)(2) and (3). Its main legal effect is to alter when the state may initiate prosecutions for lower-value theft offenses, which affects prosecutors, defendants, and victims seeking restitution.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears narrowly targeted and procedural rather than controversial in scope, focusing on timing for prosecution rather than redefining theft offenses or penalties.
Contention
The only apparent point of policy tension is the choice to treat very low-value thefts differently from thefts valued at $100 or more. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to preserve prosecutorial flexibility for more serious misdemeanor thefts, while critics might argue that shortening the filing window for thefts under $100 could make it harder to pursue accountability in minor but repeated or delayed-discovery cases. No specific stakeholders or objections are identified in the provided record.