State v. Simmelink, 855 N.W.2d 437

Simmelink, former village clerk/treasurer, was previously investigated and convicted in 2007 on some theft and forgery counts; other alleged thefts (2001–2003) were not charged then.
A new village clerk found records of additional losses on December 21, 2011, and those records were given to law enforcement.
The State filed charges on April 9, 2012 alleging 26 additional felony thefts occurring between April 12, 2001 and October 22, 2003.
Simmelink moved to dismiss as time-barred under the six-year felony statute of limitations; the circuit court denied the motion and convicted him on stipulated facts.
The appeal turns on the meaning of "discovery" in Wis. Stat. § 939.74(2)(b), which tolls the six-year limit and permits prosecution "within one year after discovery of the loss," but no more than eleven years after the offense.
The State conceded the losses were actually discovered on December 21, 2011 and filed within one year; Simmelink argued the one-year period should run from when the loss "reasonably should have been discovered."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does "discovery" in Wis. Stat. § 939.74(2)(b) mean actual discovery or constructive discovery (when it should have been discovered)?	The State: "discovery" means actual discovery; the one-year clock runs from actual discovery.	Simmelink: "discovery" includes when the loss reasonably should have been discovered (constructive knowledge), so the one-year period began earlier.	The court held "discovery" means actual discovery by the aggrieved party; no reasonable-diligence/constructive-discovery requirement is read into § 939.74(2)(b).

State v. Polashek, 253 Wis. 2d 527, 646 N.W.2d 330 (2002) (standard for statutory interpretation; review de novo)
Badzmierowski v. State, 171 Wis. 2d 260, 490 N.W.2d 784 (1992) (plain-meaning rule for statutes)
Hansen v. A.H. Robins, Inc., 113 Wis. 2d 550, 335 N.W.2d 578 (1983) (civil discovery rule: accrual when discovered or should have been discovered)
Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 303 Wis. 2d 34, 734 N.W.2d 827 (2007) (applying "should have discovered" in civil fraud statute)
Milwaukee W. Bank v. Lienemann, 15 Wis. 2d 61, 112 N.W.2d 190 (1961) (civil discovery/ accrual principles)
Stroh Die Casting Co. v. Monsanto Co., 177 Wis. 2d 91, 502 N.W.2d 132 (Ct. App. 1993) (civil discovery rule application)
State v. Manuel, 281 Wis. 2d 554, 697 N.W.2d 811 (2005) (only dispositive issues need be addressed)
State v. Briggs, 214 Wis. 2d 281, 571 N.W.2d 881 (1997) (courts must not rewrite statutes)
Matasek v. State, 353 Wis. 2d 601, 846 N.W.2d 811 (2014) (do not read into statutes language legislature omitted)
Brauneis v. LIRC, 236 Wis. 2d 27, 612 N.W.2d 635 (2000) (respect legislative wording)
John v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 183, 291 N.W.2d 502 (1980) (purposes of statutes of limitations)
Beasley v. State, 536 S.E.2d 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (rejecting constructive-knowledge standard where statute uses actual-knowledge language)