True or False: Charging someone with an offense runs concurrent if they are out of state or have no fixed address.

Charging someone with an offense running concurrent when they are out of state or have no fixed address can be true under certain legal scenarios. In many jurisdictions, offenses may run concurrent if the circumstances surrounding the individual – such as being out of state or lacking a fixed address – affect the practicality of handling their charges. Typically, it's believed that if an individual is absconding or if the jurisdiction lacks a method to bring them to court, the charges may be managed in a way that recognizes those imperfections in jurisdictional reach or service of process.

This perspective acknowledges that legal systems often try to adapt enforcement and procedural timelines to ensure fairness and efficiency, even if it can complicate charging scenarios. However, context in legal outcomes may vary, and it is essential to consider the specifics of each case and the state's laws regarding jurisdiction and concurrent charges.

While the other options present nuances (like the situation depending on the case or requiring the individual to return to the state), they suggest conditions rather than affirming the general rule implied that being out of state automatically leads to concurrent charging.