The State v. Crowder
338 Ga. App. 642
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Curtis Crowder owned Syntellus Dataworks, which sold computer hardware and obtained a Georgia sales tax ID in 2003.
- DOR auditors began a routine sales tax audit in spring 2010; DOR records showed no sales tax payments on Syntellus’s account since 2003.
- In August 2010, a DOR employee discovered SunTrust refund requests and waiver forms signed by Crowder stating taxes were collected and remitted; she alerted the auditor conducting the Syntellus audit.
- On September 8, 2010 the DOR auditor reviewed Syntellus returns and concluded Crowder had collected sales tax and failed to remit it; repayment terms were discussed.
- DOR issued an assessment on October 29, 2010 after Crowder’s initial production of only sales summaries; Crowder later provided detailed invoices in January 2011.
- The State indicted Crowder on October 24, 2014 for unlawful conversion, theft by taking, and three counts of false swearing; Crowder moved to dismiss as time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Crowder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 4-year statute of limitations was tolled under OCGA § 17-3-2 because the crimes were "unknown" to the State | DOR lacked actual knowledge of the criminal acts until after the October 29, 2010 assessment and receipt of detailed invoices (Jan 2011), so tolling applies | DOR learned of the essential acts (collection and nonremittance of sales tax and false waiver statements) before Oct. 29, 2010, so tolling does not apply and indictment is untimely | Court held tolling did not apply; DOR had actual knowledge before Oct. 29, 2010, so prosecution was time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Campbell, 295 Ga. App. 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (determination of when crime discovered is factual; tolling measured by actual knowledge)
- Royal v. State, 314 Ga. App. 20 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (tolling ends when victim’s investigator meets with reporter and reviews corroborating documents)
- Jenkins v. State, 278 Ga. 598 (Ga. 2004) (statute-of-limitations tolling not satisfied by routine investigation or prosecutor’s subjective view of sufficiency)
- State v. Briggs, 332 Ga. App. 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) (tolling requires lack of knowledge of the act itself; routine investigative steps don’t toll)
- Beauchamp v. State, 258 Ga. App. 871 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if any evidence supports them)