ÿWPCQ$ …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ 0 Õ 0Dõ 9 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u©U, 0dJ B®U,ËU*÷B)!DCJ AM¼Úþ– ” D3´4çv~ 0@™vÓÙ AO¬"Æû" 0DÁ# D/$ B4$, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ …U†U‡{eˆU‰DŠD‹UŒUŽÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x—(Ð(3¬˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€Œ…XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌJulyÏ26,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ôÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€lab€report€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€filed€in€theÏrecord€indicates€that€the€appellee€was€allegedly€in€possession€of€1.0€gram€ofÏmarijuana.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€authority€for€its€position,€the€State€cites€to€òòState€v.€Gantóó,€622€S.W.2dÏ75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€We€refrain€from€any€attempt€to€analogize€orÏdistinguish€the€facts€in€the€present€case€from€those€in€òòGantóó€as€the€facts€in€òòGantóóÏare€not€sufficiently€developed€to€complete€such€an€analysis.€€As€the€issue€ofÏdetermining€"bad€faith"€is€a€fact€specific€issue,€we€are€precluded€fromÏaddressing€the€State's€contention€in€this€opinion.Ì'ÿÿdxd *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€presentment€indicates€that€the€only€proof€›introduced€to€the€grandÏjury,€other€than€the€TBI€Crime€Lab€report,€was€the€testimony€of€the€WilliamsonÏCounty€deputy€sheriff€who€was€the€arresting€office€in€the€case.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€Ùò ò›œßL€&'%;+'h|`   `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àMARCH€SESSION,Ï1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9508„CC„00265Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€DonaldÏP.€Harris,€JudgeÌò òJONATHAN€D.€GOLDENó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(StateÏAppeal€„€Dismissal€ofÌà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àPresentment)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellantóó:ÌColley€&€Colleyà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌJohn€S.€Colley,€IIIà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.€O.€Box€1476ÌColumbia,€TN€€38402à àà àà àChristina€S.€Shevalierà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€Baugh,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDerek€K.€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€trial€court's€dismissalÏof€a€two€count€presentment€charging€the€appellee,€Golden,€with€theÏmisdemeanor€offenses€of€possession€of€marijuana€and€possession€of€drugÏparaphernalia.€€Following€presentment€by€the€grand€jury,€the€trial€court€grantedÏthe€appellee's€motion€to€dismiss€finding€that€the€State€had€acted€in€bad€faith€inÏdepriving€the€appellee€of€his€right€to€a€preliminary€hearing.€€The€State€contendsÏthat€the€trial€court's€finding€of€"bad€faith"€is€not€supported€by€the€record.€€WeÏdisagree€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òBACKGROUNDó óÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€appellee€was€stopped€for€speeding€onÏNovember€30,€1994,€by€a€Williamson€County€deputy€sheriff.€€At€the€deputy'sÏrequest,€the€appellee€consented€to€a€search€of€his€vehicle.€€During€the€search€ofÏthe€vehicle,€the€deputy€seized€a€"smoking€pipe"€and€"rolling€papers."€€TheÏappellee€was€issued€a€citation€to€appear€in€the€General€Sessions€Court€ofÏWilliamson€County€on€the€charge€of€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€SixÏdays€prior€to€the€scheduled€preliminary€hearing,€the€appellee€filed€a€motion€toÏsuppress€the€evidence€obtained€from€the€search€of€his€vehicle.€€At€the€hearingÏon€January€25,€1995,€the€appellee€presented€his€motion€to€suppress.€€In€supportÍof€the€motion,€the€appellee€called€the€arresting€officer€as€his€witness.€€At€thisÏtime,€the€State€advised€the€court€that€"for€purposes€of€general€sessions,€forÏpurposes€of€preliminary€hearing,€that€we're€not€going€to€object€to€that€motion€.€.Ï."€€The€court€then€granted€appellee's€motion€to€suppress€and€dismissed€theÏcase€for€lack€of€probable€cause.ÌÌœÌÌ›à àOn€February€13,€1995,€the€Williamson€County€Grand€Jury€returned€a€twoÏcount€presentment€against€the€appellee,€charging€him€with€possession€of€drugÏparaphernalia€and€possession€of€marijuana.× ƒ( ××  ×€€On€March€23,€1995,€the€appelleeÏfiled€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment€upon€the€ground€that€he€was€denied€hisÏright€to€a€preliminary€hearing€and€a€suppression€hearing€in€the€generalÏsessions€court.€€On€May€23,€1995,€the€trial€court€granted€the€appellee's€motionÏto€dismiss€finding€that€the€State,€acting€in€bad€faith,€effectively€denied€theÏappellee€his€right€to€a€preliminary€hearing.€€The€State€appeals€from€this€ruling.ÌÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌÌà àIt€is€settled€law€in€this€jurisdiction€that,€while€a€preliminary€hearing€is€notÏconstitutionally€required,€it€is€a€critical€stage€of€a€criminal€prosecution€mandatedÏby€statutory€law€and€is€an€adversary€proceeding€at€which€the€usual€rules€ofÏevidence€apply.€€òòMoore€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€1979).€€(citingÏòòColeman€v.€Alabamaóó,€399€U.S.€1,€90€S.Ct.€1999€(1970);€òòWaugh€v.€Stateóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€654€(Tenn.€1978);€òòMcKeldin€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€82€(Tenn.€1974)).ÌÌà àThe€principal€function€of€a€preliminary€hearing€is€to€determine€whetherÏprobable€cause€exists€to€believe€that€the€accused€committed€the€offenseÏcharged€and€to€fix€the€amount€of€bail€in€bailable€offenses.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€5.1;ÏòòState€v.€D'Annaóó,€506€S.W.2d€200,€203€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€Inherent€withinÏthe€magistrate's€findings€of€fact€supporting€the€probable€cause€determination€isÏthe€finding€that€the€facts€introduced€are€admissible€and€do€not€infringe€uponÏconstitutional€guarantees.€€Rule€5.1(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€The€finding€that€an€offense€has€been€committed€and€that€thereÏis€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€defendant€committed€it€shallÏbe€based€upon€evidence€which€may€not€be€inadmissible€hearsay,Ïexcept€documentary€proof€of€ownership€and€œwritten›€reports€ofÏexpert€witnesses.€€The€defendant€may€cross„examine€witnessesÏagainst€him€and€may€introduce€evidence€in€his€own€behalf.€€RulesÏexcluding€evidence€from€consideration€by€the€magistrate€on€theÏground€that€it€was€acquired€by€unlawful€means€are€applicable.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓIt€is€fundamental€that€motions€to€suppress€illegally€seized€evidence€areÍappropriate€at€the€preliminary€hearing.ÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that€it€complied€with€the€applicable€rules€of€criminalÏprocedure€when€it€obtained€the€presentment€against€the€appellee€following€theÏdismissal€of€the€case€for€lack€of€probable€cause€by€the€general€sessions€judge.€€ÏMoreover,€the€State€contends€that€it€was€not€acting€in€bad€faith€when€itÏacquiesced€to€the€appellee's€motion€to€suppress.€Rule€5(e)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àAny€defendant€arrested€prior€to€indictment€or€presentment€for€anyÏoffense,€whether€a€misdemeanor€or€felony,€except€small€offenses,Ïshall€be€entitled€to€a€preliminary€hearing€upon€his€request€therefor,Ïwhether€the€grand€jury€of€the€county€be€in€session€or€not.€€If€theÏdefendant€is€indicted€during€the€period€of€time€in€which€hisÏpreliminary€hearing€is€being€continued,€or€at€any€time€beforeÏaccused€has€been€afforded€a€preliminary€hearing€on€a€warrant,Ïwhether€at€his€own€request€or€that€of€the€prosecutor,€he€mayÏdismiss€the€indictment€upon€motion€to€the€court.€€òòProvided,Ïhowever,€that€no€such€Motion€to€Dismiss€shall€be€granted€after€theÏexpiration€of€thirty€days€from€the€date€of€the€defendant's€arrestóó.ÌÓÓœ›ÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(e)€(emphasis€added).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€ÏòòMooreóó,€578€S.W.2d€at€78,€created€an€exception€to€the€thirty„day€rule.€€In€òòMooreóó,Ïour€supreme€court€held€that:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€30„day€limitation€.€.€.€is€applicable€only€when€all€parties€„„Ïincluding€the€defendant,€who€must€act€promptly€„„€have€acted€inÏgood€faith€and€in€compliance€with€the€statute.€€€The€failure€of€theÏcourt€or€the€prosecution€to€exercise€good€faith€and€to€abide€the€lawÏoperates€to€toll€the€statute€and€preclude€its€invocation.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€82.€€Thus,€the€question€central€to€our€review€is€whether€the€State€acted€inÍ"bad€faith"€to€deprive€the€appellee€of€his€right€to€a€preliminary€hearing.× ƒ) ××  ×€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€state,€in€bad€faith,€effectively€denied€theÏappellee€a€preliminary€hearing.€€The€trial€court€noted:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€this€and€similar€cases,€the€State€has€taken€the€position€that€if€aÏdefendant€seeks€to€enforce€his€or€her€right€to€a€preliminary€hearingÏexclusive€of€illegally€obtained€evidence,€the€response€will€be€toÏnot€oppose€the€motion€to€suppress€and€allow€the€warrant€to€beÏdismissed€for€lack€of€probable€cause.€.€.€.€€That€the€State's€action€isÏin€bad€faith€is€obviated€by€the€fact€it€now€seeks€to€use€the€sameÏevidence€whose€suppression€it€did€not€oppose€on€preliminaryÏhearing€to€prosecute€the€defendant€after€an€indictment€has€beenÏreturned.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€State€should€haveÏnot€been€allowed€to€ignore€the€procedural€laws€by€such€aÏstratagem.€.€.€.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÓÓÌWe€reach€the€same€conclusion€as€did€the€trial€court.€€The€State€offers€noÏexplanation€why€the€same€witness€who€testified€before€the€grand€jury€was,€inÏeffect,€not€permitted€to€testify€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€Accordingly,€weÏconclude€that€the€State,€in€not€opposing€appelleeððs€motion€to€suppress,€was€notÏacting€in€good€faith.ÌÌà àOur€ruling€in€this€case€does€not€intend€to€imply€that€the€State€is€alwaysÏprecluded€from€presenting€a€case€to€the€grand€jury€following€a€dismissal€of€theÏwarrant€before€a€preliminary€hearing.€€Rather,€this€opinion€permits€a€dismissal€ofÏan€indictment€when€it€has€been€determined€that€the€State,€acting€in€òòbad€faithóó,Ïeffectively€denies€the€accused€a€preliminary€hearing.€ÌÌà àBad€faith€may€be€defined€as€the€state€of€mind€involved€when€one€is€notÏbeing€faithful€to€one's€duty€or€obligation.€€òòSee€generallyóó€€òòBlack's€Law€DictionaryÏóó693€(6th€ed.€1990).€€The€duty€of€a€prosecutor€is€twofold.€€In€one€instance,€he€isÏthe€guardian€of€the€State's€interest.€€At€the€same€time,€the€prosecutor€is€theÏprotector€of€the€rights€of€the€accused.€€At€all€times,€the€prosecutor's€goalÏremains,€not€that€he€shall€win€a€case,€but€that€justice€shall€be€done.€€òòSeeóó€ÏòòBerger€v.€United€Statesóó,€295€U.S.€78,€88,€55€S.Ct.€629,€633€(1935).€€Thus,€ÌÓÓà8 à[H]e€may€prosecute€with€earnestness€and€vigor€„€„€indeed,€heÏshould€do€so.€€But,€while€he€may€strike€hard€blows,€he€is€not€atÏliberty€to€strike€foul€ones.€€It€is€as€much€his€duty€to€refrain€fromÏimproper€methods€as€it€is€to€use€every€legitimate€means€to€bringÏabout€a€just€one.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€874€S.W.2d€602,€611€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€803€S.W.2d€709,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Although€theÏprosecutor's€actions€in€the€present€case€may€not€have€originated€from€aÏmalicious€intent,€his€intent,€standing€alone,€is€insufficient€to€remove€the€taint€ofÍ"bad€faith"€from€his€actions.€€The€record€supports€a€finding€that€the€prosecutorÏdid€not€fulfill€his€duty€as€"protector€of€the€rights€of€the€accused."€€Accordingly,€heÏacted€in€"bad€faith."ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌœ›ÌÓ` °ˆX} ’XÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ̛̜œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›ÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€Special€Judgeà àà à