the victim could not have discovered the answer for any wrongdoing as a result of learning that the defendant had written checks without her individualized knowledge of resisting the defendant has passively c her financial affairs was unable to manage them at least as as early as two thousand and three when she vested our attorney and so mr meyer is the real issue or the only question in the case of the discovery of the of fense mean the aggrieved person must know that the offense or a crime actually took place or is it sufficient that the person simply suspect you have or have reason to believe that the misappropriation of funds occurred  stands in a position of trust with the victim and then illegally uses the assets the facts supporting each element of the offense and then the stated yesterday should begins to run yes yes if it well there are there are are there chuen possible triggering events one is that the victim or someone representing the victim discovers the offense of discovery meaning in this instance as with real teaches that aggrieved party or the victim has knowledge isn't that a matter for the trier of fact if there was some knowledge of the the aggrieved thought there was something strange about all this wouldn't the trier of fact though really decide that the runner doesn't need to be familiar the illegality of the use of the victim's assets so your honor it that the victim doesn't need to know the criminal code by heart but she does need to know where a person who has a story wor tap that knowledge if i bail or the person who has authority for the agreed yes yes shop so one of those two parties must have knowledge of the actual facts supporting each element of it is it is at the very heart of the of the via of the of the offense if the use is not illegal then it's not an offense  and both parties agree that that is that it's plainly with analysis produced the correct definition of that the greil also lies the meaning of a person with a duty to report appellate court in mcgreal found that discovery met gaining knowledge or finding out that appeal statute had been violated it reasoned that gaining knowledge or that finding out required more than mere suspicion but it did not hold that every element had to be fill the fourth district court exacted mcgreal definition of discovery it found that discovery meant the gaining of knowledge but it also found that mcgreal did not hol that an aggrieved person had to have knowledge another has filled every element of the defense as defined by the criminal code and with real there were two issues discovery of the offen and the duty of the person to report that discovery and mcgreal the person who had the duty to report it was the head of the department and when that person gain gain knowledge of the facts an offense has occurred there was discovery that occurred after had been some investigation or gathering of facts for that had a partner so here the fourth district court looked necessarily didn't have to have an investigation financial exploitation of the elderly occurs when a person of trust illegal uses the assets and resources of that elderly person the so even them esophagus might not have known legally the terms of that or the terms of it you should be duty she knew that she had money and her bank account from the sale of her home she knew that that money was no longer there and mrs chenoweth was the only other person to have access that count she knew that she was in a nursing home and the money had not been spent on those expens knew what she had received did not amount to what was missing from her bank account and assets she knew everything she needed to know to know that money from her account was sped and it was not spent for her benefit and met her fill those requirements a violation of financial exploitation of an elderly person so the victim is sufficient if the victim knows something is wrong i think based on the grill and based on a lot worse and with haitian there has to be more than speculation there has to be more than just station there has to be something more than that and she had more than that when she discovered her money was missing she knew what she had received that did and it could not be accounted so she was aware of something quite a bit simply stated she had enough information as early as september but definitely when she found out where this money had gone to she knew what had happened did she have to know contrary to the explanations given by the attorney in fact that the money that i think some of the money allegedly was they would have been used to repay your daughter for lewisham work and hours for doing it you have to know that in fact that was three person could not discover because of the complexity of if you should do the relationship that an offense has been committed is contrary to the basic tenets of instruction has there would be no need to include that language discovery by an aggrieved person if the agreed person has has some specialized legal knowledge before they can understand that this spending just doesn't me know that she had money in her bank account and she did know it was missing and she did know that she received no benefit that would amount to that amount of money that was missing from him so although she did not know the legal technicalities or procedures she knew that she was a victim person has that personal knowledge of whether they've received some benefit and this is similar to me to after leaving home you've locked your door you return home the door is ajar it's been broken open your valuables have been taken you have discovered and you may not know whether it's robbery or burglary under the law that you know that you 're a bit later maybe discover that your spouse forgot their key in or the house took a laptop and some other valuables so maybe a crime has not been committed because there is a defense to it but just because there's a defense to it doesn't mean that the crime hasn't hurt and in this situation you have an aggrieved party who should not be required to have legal knowledge or to go out and find an attorney to give them advice to determine whether or not they're the victim when she knew that she had something she no longer had and she knew who had taken it and she knew that she had not received and invent it you were asked to determine whether this was filed within the period of the statute of limitations and that was part of the clip i think was part of the charge was it not yes was left and i don't recall the swim reading the briefs was there a factual finding by the trier of fact as to whether it's timely filed so this has become a factual question as opposed to a legal in that regard it's partly a factual question but the argument that was made in the appellate court was that they failed to allege the correct exception before the prosecutor's awareness becomes the point at which the sashing insta run there has to be no discovery vinatieri person or no discovery by person with a legal duty to report in this case there was before an aggrieved person can discover the offense they would have to have specialized legal knowledge and that's just simply not the case the legislature would not have included the language discovery of an agreed person and a statute designed to extend the statute of limitations when there is that through the breach of it usually duty if they did not believe that the aggrieved person could discover an offense it would make it meaningless and in this case there is just no conflict between the fourth district distinction and mcgreal by the fourth district's rejection of the state's argument below that every element of the offense had to be filled or the agreed party would have to have knowledge that every element was the fails before there is discovery it would just thousand and eight they didn't know whether these expenditures were legal or not they had the law with drawls and credits to the bank in question they did not know what these detective leeson took another year to investigate to get the answer those questions you posed it would still be timely yes your honor it will be and this is it another teaching of mcgreal is that discovery happens when an after the indictment was filed so as soon as detective leeson had determined that there was a sufficient quantity of factual evidence through his investigation that these  year then and it then it doesn't cover knowledge regardless of what is transpiring you know parallel investigations but what we have here is a victim who had suspicions you know indeed she began crying was upset and she saw these the evidence that of the suspicious expenditures but mcgreal was very clear that suspicion does not equal discovery knowledge is required knowledge of wrongdoing and  so the state has to make a determination if the outset of whether or not the victim is discovery to indicate to the investigator a better get your investigation done by such and such a date so we decide whether a prosecutor  right were there might be enough there to for us to come to the conclusion that the victim did discover but maybe the state once more with respect to the prosecution would have would have to tell the investigator you know