387 P.3d 915
Okla. Crim. App.2016Background
- Michael Hines Tollett was convicted at a bench trial in Stephens County for Omitting to Provide for a Minor Child (21 O.S. § 852(A)); sentence: four-year suspended term (concurrent), $123,602.25 restitution, $1,000 fine.
- Charges were filed January 31, 2012; the alleged omission ceased accruing in May 2005 when the child reached majority, implicating the three-year general statute of limitations (22 O.S. § 152(H)).
- The central factual/legal dispute was whether the statute of limitations was tolled under 22 O.S. § 153 because Tollett was allegedly absent from Oklahoma after May 2005.
- At trial the court required Tollett to prove by a preponderance that the limitations period was not tolled; defense counsel acknowledged that burden below and did not contemporaneously object.
- On appeal Tollett argued (1) the court wrongly placed burden on him rather than the State once he raised the statute of limitations, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to show tolling did not apply.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding (a) longstanding Oklahoma precedent places the burden on the defendant to prove non-tolling under § 153, and (b) the evidence showed tolling from 2005 to at least March 2011, so the 2012 prosecution was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly placed burden on defendant to prove statute of limitations was not tolled under 22 O.S. § 153 | Tollett: once he asserted the statute of limitations, the State must show tolling did not occur; burden lies with State to show discovery/limitations timing | State/Court: under § 153 and long-standing Oklahoma precedent, defendant must prove by a preponderance that the limitations period was not tolled | Court held defendant bears burden to prove non-tolling; no reversible error (defense waived contemporaneous objection; plain-error standard not met) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. State, 152 P.3d 244 (2006) (discussed allocation of burden in sexual-offense discovery cases under § 152)
- State v. Day, 882 P.2d 1096 (1994) (held State must prove date of discovery for certain sex offenses under § 152)
- Traxler v. State, 251 P.2d 815 (1952) (Oklahoma precedent placing burden on defendant to show non-tolling under § 153)
- Coleman v. Territory, 47 P. 1079 (1897) (territorial-era ruling explaining reason defendant should prove facts peculiarly within his knowledge regarding residence/tolling)
- Allison v. State, 675 P.2d 142 (1983) (interpreting requirement of fixed, permanent abode to prevent running of limitations under § 153)