There seems to be a lot of (unnecessary) confusion surrounding this, so I’ll spell it out to both of you here.
1), Wal-Mart is no way culpable, or the target of a potential suit, as Wal-Mart’s sole part in this was originally calling the police when the theft took place. Given the lack of severity of the offense, she was no doubt issued a summons and sent on her way. Possibly, she was was taken in, processed, and sent on her way. Either way, a distinction without relevance. She’s in trouble because whether via citation or from the bench during arraignment, she was given a summons to appear in court at a future date, which she ignored.
2), There is no statute of limitations on outstanding warrants. The statute of limitations limits the time after a crime has been committed that a charge may be filed. Once a charge is filed, it remains legally active until it is resolved one way or another. That can be anything from a verdict either way, to the court receiving a certificate of death.
3), The outstanding warrant had nothing to do with the theft of a pack of cigarettes. It doesn’t matter if the original charge is murder one, or jay walking. When a bench warrant is issued for failure to appear, it stays on the books forever. The failure to appear is a much more serious charge than the original theft of the pack cigarettes.
Thank you for your posting.