Commonwealth v. Perella, 464 Mass. 274

Armed robbery committed January 20, 2000 at Randolph Savings Bank; offender observed by teller and vehicle, DNA later linked to defendant.
Criminal complaint filed in District Court on January 19, 2010, charging the 2000 armed robbery.
Grand jury returned an indictment on May 12, 2010, more than ten years after the offense.
Superior Court dismissed the indictment as untimely under G. L. c. 265, § 17, because the ten-year period expired before indictment.
Commonwealth argued tolling occurred due to the complaint; defendant argued only timely indictment tolls under § 63; court evaluated statutory structure and interrelations, including § 79.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a criminal complaint toll the § 63 ten-year limit for armed robbery?	Commonwealth contends tolling via complaint.	Duffly argues only an indictment filed within ten years tolls the limit.	No; indictment must be found and filed within ten years to toll.
Does § 79’s directive that the chapter applies to complaints create ambiguity requiring complaint tolling?	§ 79 could substitute complaint for indictment.	§ 63's structure remains intact; no wholesale substitution.	No; § 63’s text requires indictment timely filed; § 79 does not override.

Commonwealth v. Dixon, 458 Mass. 446 (2010) (tolling occurs when indictment is found and filed within the period)
Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass. 298 (2007) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning controls)
Commonwealth v. Galvin, 388 Mass. 326 (1983) (avoid superfluity; read statute as whole)
Champigny v. Commonwealth, 422 Mass. 249 (1996) (liberal interpretation to accomplish purpose; avoid absurd results)
Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (statutes of limitations liberally interpreted in favor of repose)