The State appeals from the grant of a plea in bar to Jeffrey Douglas Campbell, who was indicted with two counts of felony theft by taking1 in connection with allegations that he submitted false expense reports to his employer and wrongfully listed his wife as an employee. The State contends that the trial court erred in granting the plea in bar based on the applicable statute of limitation, arguing that the statute of limitation was tolled during the time the employer did not have actual knowledge of the crime. We agree and therefore reverse. The appellate standard of review for a plea in bar asserting a statute of limitation defense is a de novo review of the issue of laws. As this ruling involves a mixed question of fact and law, we accept the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and witness credibility unless they are clearly erroneous, but independently apply the law to the facts.2 The facts as found by the trial court show that Campbell was the general manager of an Atlanta-based flight services company which was purchased by a Dallas-based company the “Employer”. In connection with coordinating the business practices of the merged companies, the Employer performed an audit in August of 2002. In October 2002, based on apparent irregularities in Campbell’s expense account and vendor invoice reimbursements, the audit was brought to the attention of the Employer’s security officer, who allegedly investigated and confirmed the discrepancies and found wrongful payroll payments to Campbell’s wife. In March 2003, the security officer brought the discrepancies totaling $13,662.85 to the attention of the Clayton County District Attorney’s office. On July 5, 2006, Campbell was indicted with two counts of felony theft by taking based on alleged expense account discrepancies and wrongful payments to his wife taking place between January 2000 and December 2002. Arguing that the indictment was barred by the four-year statute of limitation, Campbell successfully filed a plea in bar as to crimes allegedly committed prior to July 5, 2002.
Under OCGA § 17-3-1 c, a prosecution for felony theft by taking must commence within four years after the commission of the crime. However, under OCGA § 17-3-2 2, this statutory limit is tolled during any period in which “the person committing the crime is unknown or the crime is unknown.” The crime victim’s knowledge of the crime is imputed to the State;3 therefore, because the indictment was filed on July 5, 2006, the State had the burden to prove that the Employer’s first knowledge of the alleged theft occurred in the four years prior, i.e., on or after July 5, 2002.4
