State v. Disbrow

Disbrow (defendant) committed embezzlement over a six-year period. His first indictment was thrown out as defective because the specific act it charged had already fallen outside the statute of limitations. A second indictment then charged embezzlement acts that were within the limitations period only if the first indictment's pendency had paused, or tolled, the statute of limitations clock. Disbrow was convicted after the trial court instructed the jury it could convict him for embezzlement acts occurring within three years before the first, defective indictment was filed, and he appealed.