☢ test - Í

2007, but it also included two charges that he committed theft by conversion in 2004 and 2005—additional offenses that the State clearly did not allege in the accusation. Further, the indictment added seven counts of theft by taking that allegedly occurred on specific dates in February, March, or April 2006. And, unlike the accusation, which stated that Pennington had stolen from his business' payroll escrow account, each of the counts of the indictment named specific and independent businesses that had deposited funds into the escrow account for the purpose of paying their employees and payroll taxes and, thus, were the alleged victims of Pennington's thefts from the account.” “Under these circumstances, we conclude that the indictment substantially and materially amended the accusation, so that the indictment did not relate back to the accusation. See Martinez v. State, [306 Ga.App. 512, 523(2), 702 S.E.2d 747 (2010) (holding that the State's decision to reissue an indictment that included an additional 13 false imprisonment counts and a kidnapping count substantially amended the charges in the original indictment because the additional offenses contain elements that are separate and distinct from the crimes charged in the original indictment). [FN17. See also Lee v. State, 304 Ga.App. 681, 682(1) (697 S.E.2d 221) (2010) (holding that the State's decision to amend an accusation to replace a charge of prostitution with the separate and distinct offense of pimping substantially amended the original charge and, because the statute of limitation had expired before the amended accusation was filed, the State was barred from prosecuting the defendant on the pimping charge), rev'd on other grounds, Lee v. State, 289 Ga. 95, 97 (709 S.E.2d 762) (2011); State v. Bair, [303 Ga.App. 183, 187 (692 S.E.2d 806) (2010)] (holding that it was impermissible for the State to reissue an indictment that included 31 counts of theft by taking after the original indictment, which alleged a single count of theft by taking, was dismissed as defective, because it broadened and substantially amended the original indictment). ] Consequently, we find that the State's filing of the accusation did not stop the running of the four-year statute of limitation period for filing the indictment.” Accord, Outen (November 5, 2013), above. Jannuzzo v. State, 322 Ga.App. 760, 746 S.E.2d 238 (July 9, 2013). Convictions for RICO and theft by conversion reversed based on statute of limitation. State failed to show that victim (Glock, Inc.) first had actual knowledge of the theft (the last predicate offense under the RICO count) within the four-year statute of limitation for theft or the five-year statute for RICO. Theft here involved a gun, the property of Glock, Inc., loaned to defendant while he was Glock’s general counsel. Defendant failed to return the gun when he left Glock’s employ in 2003. A corporate vice president testified that defendant specifically told him he still had the gun at that time. A co-conspirator testified that he told the company’s founder a few months later “that he and Jannuzzo had conspired to steal from Glock. Accordingly, evidence showed that the victims (and therefore the State) had actual knowledge of these offenses more than five years prior to the June 12, 2009 indictment, and the State produced no evidence or argument to the contrary.” State v. Mullins, 321 Ga.App. 671, 742 S.E.2d 490 (April 30, 2013). In theft by taking prosecution, trial court properly granted plea in bar based on statute of limitation; contrary to State’s argument, OCGA § 17-3-2.2 doesn’t create “a 15– year statute of limitation when the victim is over the age of 65.” Rather, the four-year limitation for felonies set forth in OCGA § 17-3-1(c) applied. “OCGA § 17–3–2.2 states that ‘ [i]n addition to any periods excluded pursuant to Code Section 17–3–2, if the victim is a person who is 65 years of older, the applicable period within which a prosecution must be commenced under Code Section 17–3–1 or other applicable statute shall not begin to run until the violation is reported to or discovered by a law enforcement agency, prosecuting attorney, or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Such law enforcement agency or other governmental agency shall promptly report such allegation to the appropriate prosecuting attorney. Except for prosecutions for crimes for which the law provides a statute of limitations longer than 15 years, prosecution shall not commence more than 15 years after the commission of the crime. ’ (Emphasis supplied.)” Based on Harper v. State , 292 Ga. 557, 738 S.E.2d 584 (February 18, 2013): “Generally, ... prosecution for [theft, OCGA §§ 16–8–2 & 16–8–3] must be commenced within four years of the commission of those crimes. OCGA § 17–3–1(c).... [L]imitation periods for prosecutions are tolled under OCGA § 17–3–2.2 ‘if the victim is a person who is 65 years of age or older, ... until the violation is reported to or discovered by a law enforcement agency, prosecuting attorney, or other governmental agency....’” (Footnotes omitted and emphasis supplied.) “Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that the four-year statute of limitation contained in OCGA § 17–3–1(c) was applicable and that the State had failed to plead and prove that the tolling provisions of OCGA § 17–3–2.2 had been triggered.” State v. Boykin, 320 Ga.App. 9, 739 S.E.2d 16 (February 26, 2013). Trial court properly granted defendant’s plea in bar to rape and related charges, based on running of statute of limitation. 1. “The state argues that the statutes of limitation had been tolled by the ‘person unknown’ exception. However, that exception does not apply in this case because Boykin was not an unknown person, and instead was one of the state's primary suspects shortly after the alleged crimes were committed.” Citing Jenkins (November 8, 2004), below . 2. “We note that the state does not claim that the ‘DNA exception,’ as set forth in former OCGA § 17–3–1(c.1), applies to this case. Rather, at the plea in bar hearing and in its appellate brief, the state has acknowledged that the physical evidence allegedly containing DNA evidence was