State v. Cook, 2010 Ohio 6305

In December 2000, a pastor announced a donation of Esther Benfer's farm to the church in Metamora, Ohio.
In May 2001, Cook advised Benfer on Medicaid planning and drafted a quitclaim deed transferring title to Cook as trustee with a life estate for Benfer.
Cook later altered and re-recorded deeds to reflect marital status changes and to transfer back to the church with Benfer’s life estate, at various dates (1998-2004).
In February 2004, church trustees discovered irregularities in the deeds, including backdating and misdesignation of grantees.
April 2005, Toledo Bar Association filed disciplinary charges against Cook; October 2006, disciplinary findings were reported to prosecutors.
July 18, 2007, a grand jury indicted Cook on tampering with records (R.C. 2913.42) and theft from an elderly person (R.C. 2913.02).
Cook moved to dismiss under the six-year felony limitations period (R.C. 2901.13(A)(1)(a)); trial court dismissed.
Court of appeals held discovery of corpus delicti in February 2004 tolled the six-year period under R.C. 2901.13(F), making the indictment timely, and certified a conflict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2901.13(F) tolls the six-year period for a felony with fraud.	Cook argued Climaco limits tolling; F tolls all until discovery.	State argued Climaco distinguishes, and F applies; six-year period tolls until discovery.	R.C. 2901.13(F) tolls until corpus delicti discovered; six-year period begins after discovery.
Whether R.C. 2901.13(B)(1) provides a one-year limit post-discovery for fraud offenses.	Cook argues B(1) provides a one-year window after discovery.	State argues B(1) does not apply here; harmonization with F is possible.	B(1) applies only when discovery occurs after expiration of the standard period; here it does not conflict with F.
Whether Climaco controls or is distinguishable in tolling analysis.	Climaco should govern, limiting tolling and timeframes.	Climaco distinguished or limited; no media pressure here; F governs tolling.	Climaco is distinguishable; not controlling in this case; F tolling applies.
Was the indictment timely filed under the combined tolling framework?	Discovery within six years would bar prosecution unless tolling applied.	Indictment timely because discovery occurred within six years and tolling extended window.	Indictment timely; six-year period tolled until February 2004 discovery; thereafter one-year post-discovery window did not apply because discovery occurred within the standard period.

State v. Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., L.P.A., 85 Ohio St.3d 582 (1999) (limitations tolling with discovery; not applicable when enhancing purposes of Climaco would defeat goals)
State v. Hensley, 59 Ohio St.3d 136 (1991) (corpus delicti discovery tolls limitations)
State v. Swartz, 88 Ohio St.3d 131 (2000) (general rule: crimes complete when offense is complete; exceptions exist)
United Tel. Co. of Ohio v. Limbach, 71 Ohio St.3d 369 (1994) (statutes relating to same subject treated in pan materia; harmonization principles)