Reeves v. State
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2110
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Reeves charged June 30, 2009 with ten counts of class C felony aiding, inducing, or causing securities fraud for acts dated Sept 2000–July 2005.
- Charging informations targeted conduct across multiple Alanar bond issues, alleging removal of funds from repayment/proceeds accounts.
- Probable cause affidavit acknowledged five-year limitation but invoked concealment of evidence tolling under I.C. 35-41-4-2(h)(2).
- trial court held concealment tolling applied, sustaining timely filing within five-year window from July 26, 2005 injunction date.
- On appeal, Court addresses whether charging informations properly alleged concealment and whether acts outside the limitation period could be sustained; remands for potential cure by amendment.
- Final posture: partial affirmance, partial reversal, remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does concealment toll the statute of limitations? | State asserts concealment tolling applies. | Reeves argues no concealment allegation; tolling not proven. | Partially for Reeves; concealment not alleged in informations. |
| Are the pre-June 30, 2004 acts within the limitation period as charged? | Informations alleged acts within window from June 30, 2004 to July 2005. | Concealment tolling could include earlier acts. | Earlier period not within tolling; dismissal required for that period. |
| Did the informations sufficiently allege the concealment exception to tolling? | Will not have been charged under concealment absent explicit allegations. | Concealment allegations exist in probable cause affidavit; may cure by amendment. | Informational deficiency; remand to determine cure by amendment. |
| Should the court remand to determine cure or dismissal for dates outside the limitation period? | Remand to allow cure under I.C. 35-34-1-4(d). | Trial court should consider cure or dismissal on remand. | Remand granted for cure/dismissal decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chrzan, 693 N.E.2d 566 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (concealment must be a positive act and ongoing fraud tolls statute)
- Willner v. State, 602 N.E.2d 507 (Ind.1992) (information must allege within limitations and concealment particulars)
- Greichunos v. State, 457 N.E.2d 615 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) (information must allege facts showing within limitations or exception)
- Jones v. State, 14 Ind. 120 (1860) (essential that concealment acts be alleged)
- Randolph v. State, 14 Ind. 232 (1860) (same principle on concealment pleadings)
- Kifer v. State, 740 N.E.2d 586 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (concealment is fact-intensive and must be pled)
- Umfleet v. State, 556 N.E.2d 339 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (due diligence and discovery of crime facts affect tolling)
- State v. Chrzan, 693 N.E.2d 566 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (quoted again for tolling standard)