ÿWPCÓC …UBV %˜U%.ž 0CÌ 0J 0TY 0^­ 0h 0Ðs 0rC 0|µ 0†1 0· 1uG U!,¼ 0dè U,L U!6x B)® DC× nX* 0#4‚¶ AM¾ B  D3(ý[ 0@Xf˜3þB1òs enðvðfVW]îcâQ3 ÃN!Ÿ#¡°&Q*ñm+Ø^,H6.$~/¢0õÀ1ëµ2ë 3õ‹4ô€5w@t64´6ñÈ6ñ¹7ðª8Cš9v~Ý:vÓ[< AO.BÆ}B 0DCC D/‡C B¶C<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(€(2i-$¤¤Ý ƒ$¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€X¿]XXXÔÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2@ 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< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd3|XÚ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d(((('ÿÿdxd óÝ ƒ$!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMay€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ )Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóCount€VI€alleges€the€crime€occurred€on€ð ðdiverse€daysðð€between€April€14,€1987Ïand€May€14,€1987.Ì 8Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòState€v.€Seagravesóó,€837€S.W.2d€615,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1992).€Ì èÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeagravesóó,€837€S.W.2d€at€620.Ì ÿÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòState€v.€Davidsonóó,€816€S.W.2d€316,€318€(Tenn.€1991).Ì þÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€886€(Tenn.€1993).Ì æÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòPearsonóó,€852€S.W.2d€at€886.Ì æÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€886.Ì ÷Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó397€U.S.€112,€90€S.Ct.€858,€25€L.Ed.2d€156€(1970).Ì üÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó397€U.S.€at€114„15,€90€S.Ct.€at€860,€25€L.Ed.2d€at€161.Ì üÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòState€v.€Henryóó,€834€S.W.2d€273,€276€(Tenn.€1992).Ì äÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòHenryóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€276.Ì ØÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòDavidsonóó,€816€S.W.2d€at€318;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Comstockóó,€205€Tenn.€389,€393,Ï326€S.W.2d€669,€671€(1959);€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€538,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Tidwellóó,€775€S.W.2d€379,€389€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1989);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSeagravesóó,€837€S.W.2d€at€620;ÏòòState€v.€Hixóó,€696€S.W.2d€22,€25€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€€òòState€v.€Thorpeóó,€614€S.W.2dÏ60,€65€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Ì Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòDavidsonóó,€816€S.W.2d€at€318€(citations€omitted;€emphasis€in€original).Ì ¹Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Henryóó,€834€S.W.2d€273€(Tenn.€1992)(trial€court€properlyÏdismissed€indictment€prior€to€trial€because€the€allegations€contained€in€the€indictmentÏestablished€that€the€prosecution€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations).Ì •Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòTidwellóó,€775€S.W.2d€at€389€("[T]he€State€failed€to€establish€during€the€trial€thatÏthe€defendant€concealed€the€offenses.");€òòseeóó€òòDavidsonóó,€816€S.W.2d€at€318€("[I]t€mustÏbe€pleaded€and€proved€that€certain€specific€facts€toll€the€statute€of€limitations.");€ÏòòComstockóó,€205€Tenn.€at€393,€326€S.W.2d€at€671€(The€State€must€plead€and€prove€thatÏcertain€specific€facts€tolled€the€statute€of€limitations.);€òòMorganóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€542€("[If]Ïthe€state€fails€to€prove€sufficient€facts€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€at€trial,€the€accusedÏcannot€be€convicted€of€the€offense.");€€òòHixóó,€696€S.W.2d€at€25€("[T]he€specific€acts€whichÏtoll€the€statute€of€limitations€must€be€pleaded€and€proved.").€€Ì —Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€the€Advisory€Commission€Comments€accompanying€Rule€5(c)(1),ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure;€€òòState€v.€Brackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€936,€939Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€òòBrackettóó,€this€Court€said:€€"TheÏAdvisory€Commission€Comments€note€that€Rule€5€has€the€effect€of€granting€the€state€aÏright€to€a€trial€by€jury.€€That,€in€our€view,€is€an€equally€meritorious€basis€for€the€rule.€ÏRule€5€must€be€given€its€ordinary€and€natural€construction.€€For€many€of€the€reasonsÏthe€defendant€is€guaranteed€the€right€to€trial€by€jury€in€the€criminal€case,€there€exists€aÏbasis€for€the€state,€on€behalf€of€its€people,€to€exercise€the€same€entitlement."€869ÏS.W.2d€at€939.€Ì Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€Advisory€Commission€Comment€accompanying€Rule€23,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.Ì çÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòBrackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€939.Ì ÎÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sluderóó,€493€S.W.2d€467,€469„70€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€414€U.S.Ï876,€94€S.Ct.€85,€38€L.Ed.2d€121€(1973)("[T]he€State€was€within€its€rights€in€exceptingÏto€a€waiver€of€the€jury€for€fixing€punishment€on€Sluder's€plea€of€guilty.").€Ì >Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€òòMcCormic€v.€Smithóó,€668€S.W.2d€304,€306€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1984).Ì Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòState€ex€rel.€Moretz€v.€City€of€Johnson€Cityóó,€581€S.W.2d€628,€631€(Tenn.Ï1979).Ì Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòCaudill€v.€Mrs.€Grissom's€Salads,€Inc.óó,€541€S.W.2d€101,€106€(Tenn.€1976).Ì ëÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó614€S.W.2d€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Ì áÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó816€S.W.2d€316€(Tenn.€1991).Ì áÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó676€S.W.2d€943€(Tenn.€1984).Ì ëÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó177€Tenn.€304,€145€S.W.2d€1032€(1941).Ì êÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó177€Tenn.€at€307,€145€S.W.2d€at€1033.Ì ÆDÇÈÉÊVËDÌÍDÎÓ€Ú»{s dd çÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòRandolphóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€944.Ì çÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòDavidsonóó,€816€S.W.2d€at€321.Ì æÝ ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòTidwellóó,€775€S.W.2d€at€389.Ì 9Ý ƒ$!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóCount€I€charged€Boone€with€securities€fraud€while€Count€II€charged€BooneÏwith€conspiracy€to€commit€securities€fraud.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ$!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€&,!;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌMARCH€1995€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ` °ˆX© ’XÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àœà à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT,à àœà à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›à àNo.€02„C„01„9404„CC„00082Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›à àHenderson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›à àJohn€Franklin€Murchison,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›à à(Securities€Fraud,€GrandÏLarceny,ÌœJACQUELINE€DEANNA€ALEXANDER€VICKERSà à)›à à€€and€Fraudulent€Breach€of€Trust)€Ìœand€WILLIAM€J.€BOONE,›à àà àà àœà à)›€€€€€€€€€€€Ìœà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)›Ìà àà àà àœAPPELLEES.›à àœà à)›Ìà àà àà à€€ÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEES:ÌÌCharles€W.€Bursonà àà àà àà àà àFOR€VICKERS:ÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àà àPatrick€F.€MartinÌNashville,€TN€37243„0494à àà àà àà àHardee,€Martin€&€JaynesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorneys€at€LawÌDavid€M.€Himmelreichà àà àà àà à213€East€LaFayette€StreetÌDeputy€Attorney€Generalà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38301Ì450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37243„0494à àà àà àà àFOR€BOONE:Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà à€à àà àà àà àà àà àHenry€HaileÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€at€LawÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à611€Commerce€Street,€Suite€2704Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37203ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCarthel€L.€Smith,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€at€LawÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à85€East€Church€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLexington,€TN€38351Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:___________________________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€JudgeÌÑ€.ÑÇØØÙ  ÙÑ7€˜XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÌÓ  Óò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellees,€William€J.€Boone€(Boone),€and€Jacqueline€Deanna€AlexanderÏVickers€(Vickers),€were€charged€with€crimes€involving€securities€fraud.€€Vickers€wasÏalso€charged€with€grand€larceny€and€fraudulent€breach€of€trust.€€Vickersððs€chargesÏarose€out€of€the€same€transaction.€€The€trial€court€initially€held€that€the€allegations€ofÏconcealment€contained€in€Counts€II,€VI,€VII,€and€VIII€were€legally€sufficient€to€toll€theÏstatute€of€limitations€and€avoid€dismissal.€€Later,€the€trial€court€conducted€anÏevidentiary€hearing€prior€to€trial€to€determine€"whether€or€not€the€State€has€a€caseÏsufficient€to€put€to€the€jury€with€regard€to€the€statute€of€limitations€concealment€issue."ÏThe€State€objected€to€this€procedure.€€Following€the€hearing,€the€court€grantedÏBooneððs€motion€to€dismiss€Count€II€of€the€indictment.€€The€court€also€held€that€theÏdefense€of€the€statute€of€limitations€was€a€complete€defense€to€the€offenses€allegedÏagainst€Vickers€in€Counts€VI,€VII,€and€VIII.€€The€pivotal€question€in€this€case€is:€€if€theÏallegations€of€concealment€contained€in€an€indictment€are€legally€sufficient€to€toll€theÏstatute€of€limitations€for€the€offense€charged€in€the€indictment,€may€the€trial€courtÏconduct€an€evidentiary€hearing€before€trial€to€determine€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏsupporting€the€allegations€of€concealment,€or€is€the€trial€court€required€to€submit€thisÏissue€to€the€jury€for€its€determination?€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€trial€court,Ïhaving€determined€the€allegations€contained€in€the€indictment€were€legally€sufficient€toÏtoll€the€statute€of€limitations,€was€required€to€submit€the€issue€to€the€jury€and€permit€theÏjury€to€determine€the€sufficiency€of€the€State's€proof€on€the€issue€of€concealment€of€theÍcrimes.€Ìà àThe€Henderson€County€Grand€Jury€returned€an€indictment€against€ErnestÏVickers,€III,€Jacqueline€Deanna€Alexander€Vickers,€and€William€J.€Boone€on€October€5,Ï1992.€€The€grand€jury€returned€a€superseding€indictment,€which€is€now€before€thisÏCourt,€on€February€1,€1993.€€The€superseding€indictment€contains€eighteen€counts.€ÏErnest€Vickers€is€charged€in€all€eighteen€counts€of€the€indictment.€€Boone€and€ErnestÏVickers€were€charged€with€securities€fraud€in€Count€I€of€the€indictment€and€conspiracyÏto€commit€securities€fraud€in€Count€II€of€the€indictment.€€Ernest€Vickers€and€his€wife,ÏJacqueline€Vickers,€are€charged€with€the€offense€of€securities€fraud€in€Count€VI€of€theÏindictment,€fraudulent€breach€of€trust€in€Count€VII€of€the€indictment,€and€grand€larcenyÏin€Count€VIII€of€the€indictment.€€These€three€counts€of€the€indictment€are€predicatedÏupon€a€single€property€transaction.€€The€only€counts€of€the€indictment€that€are€beforeÏthis€Court€are€Count€II,€VI,€VII,€and€VIII.Ìà àCount€II€of€the€indictment€alleges€that€the€conspiracy€occurred€on€or€aboutÏJanuary€11,€1988.€€The€statute€of€limitations€for€conspiracy€was€two€(2)€years.€€CountsÏVI,€VII,€and€VIII€allege€that€the€offenses€occurred€on€or€about€April€16,€1987.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€TheÏstatute€of€limitations€for€these€three€offenses€was€four€(4)€years.€€Thus,€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€had€expired€for€the€offenses€contained€in€all€four€counts.€The€State€wasÏrequired€to€allege€sufficient€facts€in€all€four€counts€of€the€indictment€to€establish€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€had€been€tolled€to€avoid€summary€dismissal.€€The€State€allegedÏthe€following€facts€in€all€four€counts€to€establish€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€beenÍtolled:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌThe€statute€of€limitations€for€this€offense€was€tolled€untilÏSeptember€28,€1990,€during€which€time€defendants€andÏtheir€agents€and€employees€concealed€the€facts€of€thisÏcrime€by€making€material€omissions€and€untrue€statementsÏin€written€and€oral€communications€to€the€Commissioner€ofÏCommerce€and€Insurance€and€the€commissioner'sÏrepresentatives,€by€delivering€or€causing€misleadingÏprospectuses€to€be€delivered€to€investors€without€informingÏthem€of€their€true€intentions€and€past€acts,€and€by€causingÏtheir€agents€to€obtain€waivers€from€investors€of€receipt€ofÏprospectuses.€€The€statute€of€limitations€was€also€tolled€fromÏOctober€5,€1992,€until€February€1,€1993,€while€a€priorÏindictment€covering€this€offense€was€pending€against€theseÏdefendants.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àBoone€and€Vickers€moved€separately€to€dismiss€the€counts€of€the€indictmentÏthat€charged€them€with€a€criminal€offense.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏaforementioned€allegations€were€legally€sufficient€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations.€€TheÏcourt€denied€the€motions.€€The€trial€court€said€in€this€regard:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àOn€the€issue€of€the€tolling€of€the€statute€or€whatever,€I€thinkÏthe€indictment€is€sufficient,€together€with€the€Bill€ofÏParticulars,€to€show€the€basis€of€the€concealment.€€That'sÏone€thing€that€was€brought€out.€€How€the€DefendantsÏconcealed€things.€€I€think€the€indictments,€together€with€theÏBill€of€Particulars,€is€sufficient€in€that€regard.ÌÌÌÓÓLater,€defense€counsel€asked€the€trial€court€to€reconsider€its€ruling.€€The€court€said:€€"IÏruled€on€the€sufficiency€of€the€indictment€and€I'm€going€to€stand€on€it."Ìà àWhen€counsel€and€the€trial€court€met€to€determine€what€procedure€should€beÏfollowed,€defense€counsel€requested€that€the€trial€court€conduct€a€hearing€to€determineÍthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€the€concealment€allegation.€€The€trial€court€referredÏto€the€procedure€as€being€similar€to€a€Morgan€hearing€and€a€procedure€"like€a€directedÏverdict€in€a€civil€case."€€The€court€also€stated€that€defense€counsel€were€asking,€"forÏlack€of€a€better€term,€sort€of€a€summary€judgment€type€of€ruling."€€Finally,€the€trial€courtÏreferred€to€it€as€"a€preliminary€hearing€before€the€Court€to€determine€whether€or€notÏthere€is€sufficient€evidence€on€the€concealing€to€go€to€the€jury,"€and€similar€to€"pre„trialÏhearings€on€suppression."€€The€trial€court€granted€the€requested€hearing€for€theÏfollowing€reasons:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  Ò[G]iven€what€we're€looking€at,€the€jury€trial,€the€length€of€theÏjury€trial,€the€expense€of€the€jury€trial,€I€think€that€we€shouldÏtry€to€do€what€we€can€without€a€jury€to€narrow€this€caseÏdown.€€And€that€would€be€basically€to€get€theseÏconcealment€things€laid€to€rest€or€partially€to€rest,€so€thatÏwhen€we€impanel€the€jury,€we'll€be€ready€to€go.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€hearing€was€also€granted€based€on€the€trial€court's€concern€"about€a€seriousÏproblem€about€the€statute€of€limitations€for€these€two€Defendants€[Boone€and€Vickers]."€ÏThe€trial€court€also€stated:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒAnd€to€say€to€them€[Boone€and€Vickers]€with€this€seriousÏquestion€being€that€we're€going€to€put€you€through€this€trialÏalong€with€18€counts€against€Mr.€Vickers,€entitles€them€to€aÏpreliminary€hearing€on€that,€in€fairness€to€them,€not€only€„„ÏAnd€also€again,€I€don't€want€to€have€to€be€interrupting€theÏtrial€constantly€when€we've€got€jurors€for€a€long€„„€which€willÏbe€long€jury„out€hearings.ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€*ÌÌÓ  ÓI€think€they€are€entitled€to€a€preliminary€hearing€on€theÏmatter,€evidentiary€hearing,€whether€they€go€through€thisÍ18„count€indictment€trial€with€Mr.€Vickers.ÌÌà àà àà àà à*€*€*€*ÌÌ[I]n€deference€to€those€two€Defendants€[Boone€and€Vickers],Ïin€fairness€to€them,€in€considering€the€legal€expenses€andÏthings€like€that,€plus,€again,€going€back€to€this,€as€having€to€„„€I'm€trying€also€to€avoid€having€to€„„€while€weððve€got€a€juryÏimpaneled,€a€jury€on€hold€during€the€Christmas€holidays,Ïsaying€we're€going€to€have€to€take€a€couple€of€days€off€andÏhave€a€jury„out€hearing,€and€then€we've€got€to€go€back,€if€IÏrule€for€the€State,€and€repeat€that€proof.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€State€objected€to€this€procedure.€€It€required€the€State€to€introduce€evidence€onÏthe€question€of€concealment€so€that€the€trial€court€could€"make€a€determination€as€toÏwhether€or€not€the€State€has€a€case€sufficient€to€put€to€the€jury€with€regard€to€the€statuteÏof€limitations€concealment€issue."€€Ìà àThe€pre„trial€hearing€was€conducted€on€the€date€this€case€was€set€for€trial.€€AsÏpreviously€stated,€the€trial€court€granted€Booneððs€motion€to€dismiss€Count€II.€€As€toÏVickers,€the€court€held€that€the€statute€of€limitations€was€a€complete€bar€to€a€convictionÏin€Counts€VI,€VII,€and€VIII.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€the€General€Assembly€enacted€the€statute€of€limitations€applicable€toÏthese€crimes,€it€declared€that€the€State€of€Tennessee€will€not€prosecute€a€citizen€for€aÏcriminal€offense€after€the€expiration€of€the€applicable€time€constraint.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Concomitantly,Ía€substantive€right€was€created€which€prohibits€the€State€of€Tennessee€fromÏprosecuting€a€citizen€for€a€crime€that€is€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.× ƒ1 ××  ×€ÏThis€right€constitutes€a€complete€bar€to€a€prosecution€that€is€instituted€after€theÏexpiration€of€the€applicable€time€constraint€unless€(a)€the€State€of€Tennessee€canÏallege€"€sufficiently€definite"€facts€in€the€indictment€that€tolled€the€statute€of€limitationsÏand€prove€those€facts€during€the€trial× ƒ2 ××  ×€or€(b)€the€accused€waives€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€defense.× ƒ3 ××  ×Ìà àA€statute€of€limitations€serves€two€related€purposes.€€First,€it€prevents€the€use€ofÏstale€evidence€to€convict€a€citizen€who€has€been€accused€of€a€criminal€offense.× ƒ4 ××  ×€ÏSecond,€it€provides€the€impetus€for€quick€action€by€law€enforcement€officers€whoÏinvestigate€criminal€offenses€and€those€individuals€charged€with€prosecuting€criminalÏoffenses.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€In€òòToussie€v.€United€Statesóó,× ƒ6 ××  ×€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌThe€purpose€of€a€statute€of€limitations€is€to€limit€exposure€to€Ïcriminal€prosecution€to€a€certain€fixed€period€of€timeÏfollowing€the€occurrence€of€those€acts€the€legislature€hasÏdecided€to€punish€by€criminal€sanctions.€€Such€a€limitationÍis€designed€to€protect€individuals€from€having€to€defendÏthemselves€against€charges€when€the€basic€facts€may€haveÏbecome€obscured€by€the€passage€of€time€and€to€minimizeÏthe€danger€of€official€punishment€because€of€acts€in€the€far„distant€past.€€Such€a€time€limit€may€also€have€the€salutaryÏeffect€of€encouraging€law€enforcement€officials€promptly€toÏinvestigate€suspected€criminal€activity.× ƒ7 ××  ×ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àSince€statutes€of€limitations€were€created€for€the€protection€of€the€citizenÏaccused€of€crime,€such€statutes€should€be€liberally€construed€in€favor€of€the€citizen.× ƒ8 ××  ×€ÏAlso,€the€grounds€that€will€permit€the€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations€should€beÏstrictly€construed€against€the€State€of€Tennessee.× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThere€are€recognized€exceptions€that€will€result€in€the€tolling€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€If€the€time€for€the€filing€of€a€particular€criminal€offense€has€expired€beforeÏan€accused€has€been€arrested€or€an€indictment€or€presentment€has€been€returned,€theÏState€must€allege€"sufficiently€definite"€facts€in€the€indictment€which€will€toll€the€statuteÏœof€limitations.›× ƒ: ××  ×€€€€As€our€Supreme€Court€said€in€òòDavidsonóó:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌWhere€there€is€a€statute€of€limitations€that€bars€prosecutionÏof€the€offense€charged,€there€should€be€a€sufficientlyÏdefinite€averment€of€time€[in€the€indictment€or€presentment]Ïto€show€that€the€offense€was€committed€within€the€statutoryÏlimit.€.€.€.€[W]here€the€indictment€is€brought€after€the€period€ofÏlimitations€has€expired,€it€must€be€pleaded€and€proved€thatÏòòcertainóó€òòspecificóó€òòfactsóó€tolled€the€statute€of€limitations.€.€.€.× ƒ; ××  ×€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓOtherwise,€œwhen€an›€indictment€which€shows€on€its€face€that€the€prosecution€is€barredÏby€the€statute€of€limitations,€the€trial€court€may€summarily€dismiss€the€indictment€prior€toÏtrial.× ƒ< ××  ×€Ìà àThe€common€law€rule€contemplates€that€if€the€allegations€contained€in€theÏindictment€are€sufficient€on€its€face€to€establish€that€the€statute€of€limitations€was€tolled,Ïthe€State€of€Tennessee€must€prove€the€allegations€during€the€trial€of€the€case€on€itsÏmerits.× ƒ= ××  ×€€However,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€Rule€12(b)(1)€or€(2),€TennesseeÍRules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€has€changed€the€common€law€rule.ÌÓ  Óò òœÌÇIII.Ìó ó›ÌÓ  Ó€à àThe€State€of€Tennessee,€like€the€accused,€is€entitled€to€a€jury€trial.× ƒ> ××  ×€€Unlike€theÏaccused,€the€State's€right€to€jury€trial€is€not€rooted€in€the€constitution.× ƒ? ××  ×Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€preserve€the€State's€right€to€a€juryÏtrial.€€Rule€5(c)(1)€provides€that€the€accused€may€submit€to€the€jurisdiction€of€theÏgeneral€sessions€court€in€misdemeanor€cases€"if€the€district€attorney€general€or€theÏdistrict€attorney€generalððs€representative€does€not€then€object."€€Thus,€if€the€State€ofÏTennessee€wants€to€handle€a€particular€misdemeanor€in€the€criminal€court€and€have€aÏjury€trial€on€the€issue€of€the€accused's€guilt,€the€State€can€prevent€the€accused€fromÏcircumventing€this€right.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€Rule€23€provides€that€the€accused€must€have€the€consent€ofÏthe€district€attorney€general€and€the€approval€of€the€trial€court€before€the€accused€canÍwaive€the€right€to€trial€by€jury.× ƒA ××  ×€Ìà àWhen€a€party€has€a€right€to€a€jury€trial,€the€party€is€entitled€to€have€all€disputedÏissues€of€fact€decided€by€the€jury.× ƒB ××  ×€€This€includes€having€the€jury€resolve€issuesÏinvolving€a€mixture€of€facts€and€law,€if€the€factual€allegations€are€disputed.× ƒC ××  ×€€WhetherÏthe€State€has€established€the€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations€is€an€issue€containing€aÏmixture€of€facts€and€law.Ìà àThe€burden€of€proving€that€the€statute€of€limitations€was€tolled€rests€upon€œtheÏshoulders›€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Since€these€issues€are€not€elements€of€theÏoffense€for€which€the€accused€is€being€tried,€the€State€must€establish€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€was€sufficiently€tolled€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.Ìà àœWhere€there€are€disputed€facts€on€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€has€run,€the€trial€judge€may€not€prevent€the€state€from€having€a€juryÏdetermine€the€issue.€€Concern€for€the€parties€expenses,€the€possible€damaging€effectÏthat€being€tried€with€a€co„defendant€might€have,€or€that€it€is€easier€to€dispose€of€theseÏissues€without€the€intervention€of€a€jury€"provides€absolutely€no€basis€on€which€to€denyÍa€party€the€.€.€.€right€to€a€trial€by€jury."× ƒD ××  ×ÌÓ  Óò òÌIV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àBoone€and€Vickers€contend€that€the€trial€court€has€the€authority€to€conduct€aÏhearing€for€the€purpose€of€determining€whether€or€not€the€State€can€sufficiently€proveÏconcealment.€€Boone€relies€upon€Rule€12(b)(1),€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure,€and€this€Court's€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Thorpeóó.× ƒE ××  ×€€He€argues€that€"[e]videntiaryÏhearings€on€Rule€12€motions€are€routine.€€Consideration€of€matters€outside€theÏindictment€in€ruling€on€a€motion€to€dismiss€on€statute€of€limitations€grounds€wasÏapproved€in€òòState€v.€Thorpeóó."€€Vickers€relies€upon€the€Supreme€Court's€opinions€inÏòòState€v.€Davidsonóó× ƒF ××  ×€and€òòState€v.€Randolphóó.× ƒG ××  ×€€She€argues€that€"[a]s€long€as€the€trialÏcourt€does€not€cross€to€a€purely€factual€determination€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€proofÏtowards€guilt€or€innocence€[the€trial€court]€can€determine€facts€for€its€conclusions€ofÏlaw."Ìà àIn€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Landisóó,× ƒH ××  ×€the€indictment€alleged€that€the€accused€hadÍlived€in€Michigan€for€three€years€following€the€commission€of€the€crime€and€theÏaccused€concealed€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€The€accused€filed€a€motion€toÏdismiss€theÇindictment›€because€the€crime€charged€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€TheÏtrial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€statute€of€limitations€issue.€€TheÏcourt€concluded€that€the€motion€should€be€sustained€and€dismissed€the€indictment.€ÏThe€State€appealed€as€of€right€from€this€judgment,€alleging€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏhaving€a€hearing€and€deciding€issues€of€fact€as€to€the€statute€of€limitations€issue.€€InÏreversing€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€our€Supreme€Court€said€that€ð ðsuch€a€practiceÏhas€never€prevailed€in€this€jurisdiction,€and€the€court€was€without€the€authority€to€hearÏthe€case€by€piecemeal;€but€the€statute€of€limitations€.€.€.€should€have€been€submitted€toÏthe€jury€at€one€time."× ƒI ××  ×Ìà à€€€The€procedure€set€forth€in€òòLandisóó€prevails€today.€€When€a€motion€to€dismissÏthe€indictment€is€filed€by€an€accused,€and€the€indictment€contains€allegations€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€is€tolled,€the€role€of€the€trial€court€is€limited€in€scope€to€aÏdetermination€of€whether€the€allegations€are€legally€sufficient.€€If€the€allegations€areÏfound€to€be€legally€sufficient,€the€question€of€whether€the€evidence€introduced€inÏsupport€of€the€allegations€sufficiently€establishes€the€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitationsÏby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€a€question€for€the€jury.€€Of€course,€if€theÏevidence€introduced€by€the€State,€as€a€matter€of€law,€will€not€support€the€allegations€orÏthe€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€the€trial€court€may€intervene€and€take€the€issueÏfrom€the€jury.€€The€same€rules€that€apply€to€the€granting€of€a€judgment€of€acquittal,€saveÏthe€quantum€of€proof,€must€be€applied€by€the€trial€court€in€determining€whether€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law.Ì€€€€à àVickersððs€reliance€on€òòRandolphóó€is€misplaced.€€First,€the€only€issue€raised€inÍòòRandolphóó€was€whether€the€sale€of€heroin€to€a€customer€who€died€from€a€self„administered€overdose€constituted€murder€in€the€second€degree€or€a€lesser€includedÏoffense,€involuntary€manslaughter.€€It€did€not€involve€a€statute€of€limitations€issue.€ÏSecond,€the€accused€simply€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment€on€the€ground€thatÏit€did€not€charge€a€criminal€offense.€€Third,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€filedÏseveral€documents€and€tangible€evidence€in€response€to€the€motion.€€Here,€the€StateÏopposed€the€pre„trial€hearing€conducted€by€the€trial€court.€€Fourth,€the€assistant€districtÏattorney€general€introduced€most€of€the€evidence€by€agreement€with€defense€counselÏat€the€hearing€on€the€motion.€€Here,€the€court€held€an€adversary€hearing.€€Fifth,€"[i]t€wasÏagreed€that€all€of€the€material€could€be€considered€in€disposing€of€the€motion€toÏdismiss."× ƒL ××  ×€€There€was€no€such€agreement€in€this€case.Ìà àVickersððs€reliance€on€òòDavidsonóó€is€equally€misplaced.€€In€òòDavidsonóó€the€StateÏmade€allegations€regarding€the€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€matter€was€thenÏtried€and€the€accused€was€convicted.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€allegationÏcontained€in€the€indictment€was€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€support€the€tolling€ofÏthe€statute€of€limitations.× ƒM ××  ×€€€òòTidwellóó€is€a€case€quite€similar€to€òòDavidsonóó.€€In€òòTidwellóó,€theÏState€made€an€allegation€that€the€accused€had€concealed€the€crimes€until€a€dateÏcertain.€€The€case€was€tried€before€a€jury.€€The€accused€was€convicted€of€several€sexÏcrimes.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€held€that€the€allegations€contained€in€the€indictment,€ifÏtrue,€would€toll€the€statute€of€limitations.€€However,€this€Court€held€the€State€had€failedÍto€prove€that€the€accused€concealed€the€offenses.× ƒN ××  ×€€Several€counts€were€dismissedÏas€being€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€In€summary,€the€question€of€whether€theÏstatute€of€limitations€was€tolled€was€submitted€to€the€jury.Ìà àBoone's€reliance€upon€òòThorpeóó€is€also€misplaced.€€In€òòThorpeóó,€the€parties€enteredÏinto€a€two„part€stipulation.€€Each€party€prepared€a€statement€of€the€evidence€that€theÏparty€expected€to€introduce€at€the€trial.€The€case€is€silent€as€to€whether€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€general€objected€to€this€format.€€Here,€there€was€no€stipulation€and€theÏdeputy€attorney€general€objected€to€the€procedure€orally€and€in€writing.€In€òòThorpeóó,€theÏState€did€not€make€any€allegation€in€the€three€counts€of€the€indictment€regarding€theÏtolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Here,€the€State€has€an€extensive€paragraphÏregarding€the€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitation€included€in€all€four€counts.€€The€onlyÏquestion€in€òòThorpeóó€was€the€last€date€the€accused€had€committed€an€act.€€TheÏpresentment€stated€that€the€offense€occurred€"on€diverse€days€beginning€January€19,Ï1978,€and€the€date€of€the€finding€of€this€Presentment."€€The€presentment€was€returnedÏby€the€grand€jury€on€June€11,€1979.€€The€trial€court,€relying€on€the€stipulation€of€theÏparties,€found€that€"the€last€act€committed€by€the€Defendant€in€regard€to€this€matterÏoccurred€in€May€of€1978."€€Since€the€indictment€was€returned€more€than€a€year€afterÏthat€date,€the€trial€court€held€the€prosecution€for€the€two€misdemeanor€counts€wasÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Here,€the€trial€court€required€the€State€to€introduceÏits€evidence€concerning€the€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€and€the€trial€court€madeÏa€determination€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€these€allegations.Ìà àThis€Court€envisions€Rule€12(b)(2),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€asÍthe€primary€remedy€for€challenging€charging€instruments€that€are€facially€defective€orÏpredicated€upon€a€statute€that€is€unconstitutional.€€This€rule€states:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌ(b)€Pretrial€Motions.€€Any€defense,€objection,€or€requestÏwhich€is€capable€of€determination€òòwithout€the€trial€of€theÏgeneral€issueóó€may€be€raised€before€trial€by€motion.€€MotionsÏmay€be€written€or€oral€at€the€discretion€of€the€judge.€€TheÏfollowing€may€be€raised€prior€to€trial:ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€*ÌÌÓ  Ó(2)€Defenses€and€objections€based€on€defects€in€theÏindictment,€presentment€or€information€(other€than€that€itÏfails€to€show€jurisdiction€in€the€court€or€to€charge€an€offenseÏwhich€objections€shall€be€noticed€by€the€court€at€any€timeÏduring€the€pendency€of€the€proceedings).€€(EmphasisÏadded).ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThis€remedy€may€also€be€used€to€challenge€the€allegations€pertaining€to€the€tolling€ofÏthe€statute€of€limitations.€€Such€a€motion€does€not€require€an€evidentiary€hearing€or€aÏfinding€of€facts.€€It€is€pure€and€simple€a€question€of€law€that€should€be€determined€byÏthe€trial€court.€€Whether€the€State€can€prove€the€allegations€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€was€tolled€is€not€"capable€of€determination€without€the€trial€of€the€generalÏissue."€€€As€previously€stated,€the€latter€issue€is€a€mixture€of€facts€and€law,€and€theÏresolution€of€the€factual€portion€of€the€issue€is€to€be€decided€by€the€jury€subject€to€theÏexception€that€the€trial€court€can€withdraw€the€issue€from€the€jury€if€the€evidenceÏpresented€is€inadequate,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€support€the€tolling€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.Ìà àWhile€it€is€true€that€òòThorpeóó€states€the€hearing€was€permitted€by€Rule€12,€theÏpanel€of€this€Court€deciding€òòThorpeóó€did€not€mention€or€allude€to€the€restriction€that€theÍissue€raised€prior€to€trial€is€"capable€of€determination€òòwithout€the€trial€of€the€generalÏissueóó."€€This€provision€was€not€relevant€to€the€inquiry€in€òòThorpeóó.€Ìà àThis€Court€concludes€that€the€trial€court€effectively€denied€the€State€ofÏTennessee€its€right€to€have€the€jury€resolve€the€issue€regarding€the€tolling€of€the€statuteÏof€limitations.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court's€reasons€for€conducting€the€hearing€did€notÏjustify€the€denial€of€the€State's€right€to€a€jury€trial€on€this€issue€and€the€guilt€of€BooneÏand€Vickers€in€the€same€proceeding.€€Therefore,€this€Court€sets€aside€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€dismissing€Count€II€of€the€indictment€as€well€as€the€judgment€finding€thatÏthe€statute€of€limitations€barred€the€State's€right€to€try€Vickers€in€Counts€VI,€VII,€and€VIII.€ÏThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€trial€on€the€issues€hereinabove€set€forth.Ìà àBoone€was€apparently€tried€for€the€offense€alleged€in€Count€I€after€the€appeal€inÏthis€case€was€perfected.€€He€contends€that€Count€II€is€now€moot€due€to€his€acquittal€ofÏthe€offense€alleged€in€Count€I× ƒO ××  ×€and€that€a€retrial€is€barred€by€the€double€jeopardyÏprovisions€contained€in€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏHe€also€contends€that€Count€II€of€the€indictment€does€not€allege€an€offense.€€Since€theÏtrial€court€has€not€ruled€on€these€issues,€this€Court€will€not€address€them.€€The€trialÏcourt€should€be€given€the€opportunity€to€decide€these€issues.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€GARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€JOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE€€€