Opinion ID: 900393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limitations Period: Beginning with Complaint Converting to Indictment

Text: [¶ 10.] The complaint against Robinson of August 29, 1997, charging fourteen counts of passing checks against insufficient funds, was filed less than six months after he received the notices of dishonor. Later, the prosecutor chose to take the matter to a grand jury. An indictment, with the same fourteen counts, was handed down on October 6, 1997, more than six months after the notices of dishonor. A criminal prosecution under § 22-41-1 or 22-41-1.2 must be commenced within six months after the holder of a check receives notice of its dishonor. Failure to prosecute a complaint within six months shall be a bar to any criminal action under those sections. SDCL 22-41-3.4. Robinson contends the case was not timely because a complaint is insufficient to commence a criminal action under § 22-41-1 or 22-41-1.2. The matter must be commenced by information or indictment, Robinson argues, because SDCL 23A-6-1 states that [e]very public offense must be prosecuted by an indictment or an information.... [¶ 11.] Although it is not specific to bad check cases, SDCL 23A-42-4 generally defines commencement of criminal prosecutions. It states that the action shall be deemed commenced by the filing of a complaint, information or indictment with any committing magistrate or clerk of any court having jurisdiction of the offense. Because the statute of limitations for bad check prosecutions provides no other definition for commencement, we apply this general provision. Therefore, the complaint properly commenced the case and the prosecution was timely.