ÿWPC¤# …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 1m  0c w@p 0”° 0DD 0Jˆ 0TÒ 0^& 0h„ 0rì 0|^ 0†Ú 0` 1uðU,e 0d‘ BõU,U6>B)t D3DCÐ AM 0@`D ääv~ÈvÓF 0w 0Š 0  0´º 0Çn 0Û5 0ï! AOÿ!ÆN" 0D# D/X# B‡#<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xè«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓypÑ  tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à ÔÕÖU×EØUÙDÚDÛ £ÜÝÓ€(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò :Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ25,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔ€€The€record€contains€judgments€of€conviction€on€count€nineteen€and€count€twenty„two€of€theÏAugust€1993€indictment€(case€number€8556).€€Nowhere€in€the€record€does€it€indicate€that€theÏdefendant€actually€pled€guilty€to€those€counts.€€Those€two€counts€are€not€mentioned€in€the€guilty€pleaÏhearing€and€they€do€not€appear€in€the€list€of€counts€included€in€the€defendantððs€guilty€plea€form.€€WeÏsuggest€that€this€matter€be€taken€up€with€the€trial€court€so€that€a€correction€may€be€made€if€necessary.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€''X„d&ÓÑ#€''Xd#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ X ÑÑ7€ןXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€,.+;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àœJANUARY›€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€ó ó€ò ò03C01„9508„CC„00237ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€€03C01„9508„CC„00238Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àLOUDONÏCOUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌANNETTE€WHITE,Ïa/k/aà àà àà à)à àHON.€E.€EUGENE€œEBLEN›,ÌANNETTE€WATSON,€a/k/aà àà à)à àJUDGEÌANNETTE€MORGAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(CertifiedÏQuestion€of€Law)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òJOHN€P.€œVALLIANT›,ÏJR.à àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€œBURSON›ó óÌà à„€and€„à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÏ&€ReporterÌò òPAUL€œHENSLEY›ó óÌSixth€Floor,€Two€œCentre›€Squareò òà àà àà àEUGENEÏJ.€œHONEA›ó óÌ625€Gay€œSt.›à àà à€à àà àà àœà àAsst.›ÏAttorney€GeneralÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òCHARLES€HAWKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òD.€ROGER€œDELP›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€703Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKingston,€TN€37763ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÑ Ü Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€present€case€involves€an€appeal€of€a€certified€question€of€law€afterÏthe€entry€of€guilty€pleas€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(b)(2)(œi›).€€We€find€that€theÏdefendantððs€issue€on€appeal€lacks€merit,€and€we€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àà àThis€appeal€represents€a€consolidated€case€arising€from€twoÍindictments€charging€the€defendant€with€a€total€of€nineteen€counts€of€embezzlement,Ïtwo€counts€of€forgery,€one€count€of€fraudulent€breach€of€trust,€four€counts€of€obtainingÏproperty€by€false€pretenses,€and€eighteen€counts€of€making€false€entries€inÏbookkeeping€records.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€defendant€moved€to€dismiss€all€counts€on€theÏbasis€that€they€had€been€brought€after€the€expiration€of€the€applicable€statutes€ofÏlimitation.€€After€a€lengthy€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€finding€that€theÏState€proved€that€the€defendant€had€concealed€the€crimes,€thereby€tolling€theÏstatutes€of€limitation.€€In€the€wake€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€the€defendant€enteredÏguilty€pleas€to€eighteen€counts€of€embezzlement,€three€counts€of€making€false€entriesÏin€bookkeeping€records,€one€count€of€forgery,€and€one€count€of€obtaining€property€byÏfalse€pretenses,€but€explicitly€reserved€the€question€of€whether€the€State€had€provedÏconcealment€so€as€to€toll€the€statutes€of€limitation.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓseven€counts€of€embezzlement€à à„€four€years€each,€all€concurrentÌeleven€counts€of€embezzlement€à à„€two€years€each,€all€concurrentÌthree€counts€of€false€bookkeeping„€three€years€each,€all€concurrentÌone€count€of€false€pretenses€à à„€four€years,€concurrentÌone€count€of€forgery€à àà à„€two€years,€consecutive.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓThe€effective€sentence€was€six€years,€with€all€to€be€served€on€probation.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏordered€the€defendant€to€pay€thirty€thousand€dollars€($30,000)€in€restitution.€€In€this€appeal,Ïthe€defendant€contends€that€the€State€did€not€sufficiently€prove€concealment€to€toll€theÏstatutes€of€limitation.€€She€claims€that€the€evidence€brought€forth€at€the€hearing€on€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€reveals€that€the€principal€victim€of€the€crimes€was€aware€of€or,Ïupon€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence,€should€have€been€aware€of€the€criminal€activityÏof€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€the€present€case€involves€little€more€than€a€hearing€on€a€motion€toÏdismiss€and€a€guilty€plea€proceeding,€the€record€is€quite€lengthy.€€We€shall€endeavor€toÏsummarize€the€pertinent€testimony€and€evidence€as€briefly€as€possible.€€The€defendant€wasÏemployed€by€Loudon€County€Memorial€Gardens€(ð ðLoudon€Memorialðð),€a€funeral€homeÏbusiness,€during€the€relevant€time€period€set€forth€in€the€indictments,€namely€January€1984Ïto€September€1987.€€During€œmost€of€that›€time€the€owners€of€the€business,€Terry€McGill€andÏFrancis€Streiffert,€relied€heavily€upon€the€defendant€for€the€daily€operation€of€the€business.€ÏShe€was€an€effective€salesperson,€handled€the€accounts€of€the€business,€and€maintainedÏbookkeeping€records.€€At€no€time€were€the€owners€displeased€with€her€performance€of€thoseÏduties.€€More€importantly,€according€to€testimony€accredited€by€the€trial€court,€at€no€time€didÏthe€owners€or€the€management€of€Loudon€Memorial€suspect€the€defendant€ofÏmisappropriating€funds.€€Furthermore,€the€record€reveals€that€the€defendantððs€generalÍreputation€in€the€community€for€truthfulness€and€honesty€was€excellent.ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€1993,€Loudon€Memorial€had€conducted€regular€reviews€of€its€financialÏrecords€and€had€discovered€no€evidence€of€misappropriation.€€Loudon€Memorialððs€financialÏrecords€had€been€audited€by€the€State,€and€they€regularly€sent€financial€information€to€anÏaccounting€firm.€€No€evidence€of€misappropriation€was€discovered€during€any€of€theseÏreviews€as€well.€€Moreover,€no€customers€of€Loudon€Memorial€complained€to€the€owners€orÏto€management€of€any€wrongdoing€with€regard€to€their€accounts.ÌÌà àà àIn€January€of€1993,€however,€Renee€Anderson,€the€office€manager€of€LoudonÏMemorial€from€September€1987€to€that€time,€discovered€circumstances€which€led€her€toÏbelieve€that€the€defendant€had€misappropriated€funds.€€The€Shockley€family€came€toÏLoudon€Memorial€to€purchase€cemetery€lots€already€owned€by€the€Pipkin€family.€€The€PipkinÏfamily€agreed€and,€in€return,€received€new€lots€from€Loudon€Memorial.€€Upon€receiving€theÏdeeds€to€the€new€lots,€Pipkin€discovered€that€he€already€owned€a€deed€to€the€new€lot€whichÏhe€had€just€received.€€Accordingly,€he€brought€all€of€his€records€to€Anderson€at€LoudonÏMemorial€to€resolve€the€matter.€€Anderson€initially€suspected€a€simple€mistake€in€LoudonÏMemorialððs€record€keeping.€€Upon€further€review€of€Pipkinððs€documentation,€however,€sheÏdiscovered€that€Pipkin€possessed€canceled€checks€which€had€been€made€payable€to€theÏdefendant€personally€rather€than€to€Loudon€Memorial.€€Pipkin€also€had€an€original€LoudonÍMemorial€receipt€made€out€by€the€defendant.€€When€Anderson€checked€Loudon€MemorialððsÏrecords,€the€entire€page€of€carbon€duplicate€receipts€where€Pipkinððs€receipt€should€haveÏbeen€located€was€missing.ÌÌà àà àThese€circumstances€prompted€Anderson€to€undertake€a€meticulousÏinvestigation€of€Loudon€Memorialððs€financial€records.€€She€contacted€other€deed€ownersÏdirectly€and€laboriously€researched€every€aspect€of€the€companyððs€files.€€Through€thisÏpainstaking€research,€Anderson€discovered€forged€documents,€altered€records€and€moreÏmissing€pages€of€carbon€duplicate€receipts.€€After€approximately€four€months€of€exhaustiveÏreview€of€company€records,€Anderson€had€discovered€the€evidence€which€led€to€theÏdefendantððs€indictments€in€the€present€case.ÌÌà àà àThe€indictments€were€returned€in€August€and€December€of€1993.€€The€timeÏperiod€covered€by€the€criminal€acts€alleged€in€the€indictments€ranged€from€approximatelyÏJanuary€1984€to€September€1987.€€The€longest€period€of€limitation€for€the€offenses€chargedÏin€the€indictments€was€four€years.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„2„101(b)(3).€€Obviously,€then,Ïprosecution€was€commenced€after€the€expiration€of€the€applicable€statutes€of€limitation.€€InÏthe€indictments,€however,€the€State€pled€that€the€defendant€had€concealed€the€evidence€ofÏher€criminal€acts€so€as€to€toll€the€statutes€of€limitation€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„2„103.€€WeÏagree€with€the€defendant€that€when€there€is€a€prosecution€after€the€expiration€of€the€statuteÍof€limitation,€the€indictment€or€presentment€must€contain€allegations€that€certain€specific€factsÏtolled€the€statutory€period,€and€proof€must€support€the€allegations.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davidsonóó,Ï816€S.W.2d€316,€318€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€œComstock›,óó€326€S.W.2d€669,€671€(Tenn.€1959);ÏòòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€538,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€œTidwell›óó,€775€S.W.2dÏ379,€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€We€further€agree€with€the€defendant€that€exceptionsÏwhich€extend€the€limitation€period,€such€as€the€provision€tolling€the€statute€during€periods€ofÏconcealment,€should€be€construed€strictly€against€the€State.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Henryóó,€834ÏS.W.2d€273,€276€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àà àIn€her€issue€on€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€State€did€notÏsufficiently€prove€concealment€because€Loudon€Memorial€knew€or€should€have€known€ofÏher€misappropriations.€€With€regard€to€her€contention€that€Loudon€Memorial€actually€knew€ofÏher€misappropriations,€the€defendant€presented€testimony€at€the€hearing€on€her€motion€toÏdismiss€that€the€owners€of€Loudon€Memorial,€McGill€and€Streiffert,€suspected€her€of€writingÏfalse€contracts€and€taking€money€from€the€companyððs€petty€cash€fund.€€Both€McGill€andÏStreiffert€testified€that€they€had€no€knowledge€that€the€defendant€was€misappropriatingÏfunds.€€Furthermore,€Leon€Bright,€another€individual€who€had€worked€for€McGill,€refutedÏtestimony€presented€by€the€defendant€that€McGill€knew€of€or€suspected€the€defendantððsÏwrongdoing.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€specifically€found€the€testimonyÏof€the€owners€regarding€their€lack€of€knowledge€of€the€defendantððs€misappropriations€to€beÏcredible€and€adopted€it€as€fact.€€The€findings€of€a€trial€judge€on€factual€issues€have€theÏweight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€these€findings€will€not€be€set€aside€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€615€S.W.2d€161,€162€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1981).€€From€our€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€The€trial€judge€was€in€the€best€position€toÏevaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€and€he€found€the€testimony€of€the€owners€to€beÏcredible€rather€than€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€witnesses.€€The€defendantððs€contentionÏthat€Loudon€Memorial€actually€knew€of€her€misappropriations€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€however,€also€argues€that€Loudon€Memorial€should€haveÏknown€of€her€misappropriations.€€Her€contention€is€basically€that,€if€Anderson€was€able€toÏdiscover€the€misappropriations€through€her€review€of€the€company€records€in€1993,€thenÏLoudon€Memorial€should€have€been€able€to€discover€them€through€their€regular€reviews€ofÏthe€records€prior€to€that€time.€€In€support€of€that€argument,€the€defendant€makes€much€ofÏStreiffertððs€testimony€that,€after€the€fact,€he€now€supposes€he€should€have€discovered€theÏdiscrepancies€found€in€the€company€records.€€In€addition,€the€defendant€stressesÏAndersonððs€testimony€that€the€monetary€figure€discrepancies€forming€the€basis€for€severalÏcounts€of€the€indictments€were€obvious€and€would€have€been€discovered€in€one€of€LoudonÍMemorialððs€regular€reviews€of€its€financial€records.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€places€far€too€much€emphasis€on€these€statements.€€In€the€firstÏplace,€this€testimony€came€in€hindsight€after€discovery€of€extensive,€intricate€evidence€whichÏled€to€the€defendantððs€indictment€on€forty„four€counts€of€financial€wrongdoing.€€MoreÏimportantly,€however,€the€discovery€of€discrepancies€in€the€companyððs€financial€recordsÏdoes€not€by€itself€lead€to€the€conclusion€or€suspicion€that€the€defendant€wasÏmisappropriating€funds.€€Of€course,€there€can€be€many€explanations€of€discrepancies€inÏfinancial€records,€from€lost€documents€to€transposed€monetary€figures.€€In€fact,€when€PipkinÏcame€forward€with€his€duplicate€deed,€the€keystone€in€the€discovery€of€the€defendantððsÏmisappropriations,€Anderson€originally€suspected€a€simple€mistake,€such€as€a€filing€error€orÏa€lost€record.€€It€was€not€until€Anderson€saw€the€canceled€checks€made€payable€to€theÏdefendant€personally€rather€than€to€Loudon€Memorial€that€she€began€to€suspect€wrongdoingÏon€the€defendantððs€part.€€That€discovery€led€to€Andersonððs€meticulous€review€of€LoudonÏMemorialððs€financial€records€with€an€eye€toward€possible€misappropriation€rather€thanÏsimple€mistaken€discrepancies.€€Andersonððs€thorough€review€included€directly€contactingÏcustomers€concerning€their€records,€a€procedure€which€would€not€have€been€undertaken€inÏLoudon€Memorialððs€routine€reviews€of€its€financial€records.€€As€a€result,€we€conclude€that€theÏrecord€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Loudon€Memorial,€in€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€diligence,€could€not€have€discovered€the€defendantððs€misappropriationsÍbecause€of€her€concealment€of€her€wrongdoing€through€the€alteration€and€destruction€ofÏfinancial€records.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€endeavors€to€compare€her€case€to€that€of€òòState€v.€Billy€B.ÏVineyard,óó€C.C.A.€No.€1030,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€18,€1986,€at€Knoxville).€ÏYet€as€the€State€points€out,€òòVineyardóó€is€markedly€different€factually€and€readilyÏdistinguishable€from€the€present€case.€€Vineyard€was€convicted€of€fraudulent€breach€of€trustÏfor€misappropriating€funds€in€his€management€of€securities€entrusted€to€him€by€MinnieÏWeinstein.€€Although€prosecution€was€brought€after€the€expiration€of€the€applicable€statute€ofÏlimitation,€the€State€argued€that€Vineyard€had€concealed€his€crime,€thereby€tolling€theÏstatutory€period,€by€sending€Weinstein€personal€checks€purported€to€be€the€dividends€fromÏher€investments.€€A€panel€of€this€Court€rejected€the€Stateððs€argument,€finding€that€the€recordÏdid€not€support€the€allegation€in€the€presentment€that€the€defendant€had€concealed€theÏcrime€for€a€period€long€enough€to€bring€the€prosecution€within€the€statute€of€limitation.€€TheÏCourt€relied€upon€the€facts€that€Weinstein€had€been€receiving€personal€checks€from€theÏdefendant€rather€than€checks€from€the€investment€company€at€which€her€trading€accountÏwas€located,€that€several€of€these€personal€checks€had€been€returned€for€insufficient€funds,Ïand€that€monthly€statements€from€the€investment€company€clearly€indicated€a€declining€cashÏbalance€and€no€stocks€or€bonds€in€her€trading€account.€€The€Court€reasoned€that€theseÏcircumstances€alerted€Weinstein€that€her€investment€account€was€virtually€depleted€inÍcontradiction€to€the€defendantððs€claims€to€the€contrary.€€As€a€result,€the€Court€concluded€thatÏWeinstein€should€have€taken€steps€to€investigate€the€condition€of€her€financial€arrangementsÏwith€the€defendant€before€the€date€alleged€on€the€presentment€as€the€end€of€the€defendantððsÏconcealment€period.€€The€defendantððs€prosecution€was€therefore€barred€as€commencingÏafter€the€expiration€of€the€applicable€statute€of€limitation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Billy€B.€Vineyard,óóÏC.C.A.€No.€1030,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€18,€1986,€at€Knoxville).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€however,€there€was€no€simple€indication€of€possibleÏmisappropriation€as€there€was€in€òòVineyardóó.€€The€accounting€and€bookkeeping€proceduresÏused€by€Loudon€Memorial€are€quite€complex€and€the€description€by€Anderson€of€how€sheÏdiscovered€the€defendantððs€misappropriations€in€the€companyððs€financial€records€occupiesÏapproximately€two€hundred€pages€of€testimony€from€the€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€to€dismiss.€€It€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€defendant€went€to€great€lengths€toÏconceal€her€misappropriations,€from€altering€records€to€forging€documents€to€destroyingÏrecords.€€These€circumstances€stand€in€stark€contrast€to€òòVineyardóó,€in€which€the€victim,ÏWeinstein,€received€a€simple€monthly€statement€clearly€revealing€the€declining€balance€inÏher€investment€account€managed€by€Vineyard.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€comparison€ofÏher€situation€to€òòVineyardóó€is€misplaced.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€foregoing€discussion,€we€conclude€that€theÍrecord€clearly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€State€sufficiently€proved€theÏdefendant€had€concealed€the€evidence€of€her€misappropriations,€thereby€tolling€theÏapplicable€statutes€of€limitation.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€defendantððs€convictions.ÌÌÓÓœÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌ›