ÿWPC £F¨åƒç4Í}°5•óq8Wö†"¢Î1°7¹xïúªÙUh=%^…3æ+6–¼“iªßa`Æ/.ó×9ÇSÉòUí$ÀYÅþ"ËÎá½ÔÖºw %ɼ“ÈßÄUU´æ2=+` ˺Åv·œĨ$ó £ígKf9Íx¼ KdxdÆYÅk‚1¢†àœ>(æaÊ“²ªfñÑÙ6šÌ”V’ÁöKžè¢·eòD}Ù‹D·¯sdû-!6ëÄ’`¬õÁ¾ÄjîÁjá¾¼ìÁ« ‰p¹¡»jiˆÄñ® .^l¨w¸†¶^VÁJPæZ$K‡ÓErÑ/¬qË\ØfO‘¸ƒÿƃ2À»Ø`n6º¤8wKšL³‰ ÍG 'ßñŒwgJ²eû{¹R(䬛ÂêG;›_´g4–Ìù¸XÇ>¿ í$l®Ž(MïÖfžC»§“DÎÞ/R„ªÊ£^yïB `Ú|³Æ‹£†yÓš KæÞÓ.ͱ£ «.qÆ :—ž0JÑ!ô/UÔDR%+H׃èî{–½W°þ‡óµB™SÇá6 êhdûþ £JdM!?è‰d—ã¿¿D oªöjVZ[¾õìC¶ÑÆÈÅb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ û û z Ò} zO ÒÉ ^ › w§ Æ« Æq Æ7Æý4ÃN×ÙèEê mìììììììììììììììììììììììb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D3· D-ê 0K ASbƵ 0¤{ 0D A«c˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÍ®’)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5•jW)@È Üê£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2ÇD$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Iu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Iu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Iu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Iu»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Iu»»»ÔÑ8€ÙXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îNdIuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Iu»îîNd #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€22,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÙX»¼IuÔÌò òÔ#†¼Iu»XXÙ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€òòóóJOHN€D.€BROWNó óÐ úJ ÐÌ€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔMcMinnÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@øøìàNo.€95„095€€€€€€R.€Steven€Ô_ÔBebbÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<g` AßÐ h¸  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02217„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ‰Ù  ÐDecember€18,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ›ë  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¬` AßÐ ­ý  ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÙX»¼IuÔÌÌòòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,óó€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting.Ð ¦ö ÐÌÌ€€€€€€€I€concur€in€the€result€reached€and€most€of€the€reasoning€in€the€majority€opinion.€€I€respectfullyÐ jº Ðdisagree,€though,€with€its€view€of€the€stateððs€requirement€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201(a)(4)Ð V¦ Ðto€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€offenses€were€committed€before€the€return€of€the€formalÐ B’ Ðcharge.€€I€believe€that€such€timing€was€sufficiently€proven.€€Ð .~ ÐÌà  àI€note€that€the€requirement€provided€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201(a)(4)€is€rooted€in€theÐ V Ðcommon€law€and€in€the€historical€practice€in€the€Tennessee€trial€courts.€€Also,€I€believe€that€it€dealsÐ òB Ðwith€an€issue€of€jurisdiction€even€though€the€standard€of€proof€is€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Ð Þ. ÐÌà  àAt€common€law,€the€indictment€was€required€to€allege€that€the€offense€occurred€before€theÐ ¶  Ðindictmentððs€return.€€Failure€to€do€so€rendered€the€indictment€a€nullity.€€òòSeeóó€1€Joel€Ô_ÔPrentissÔ_Ô€Bishop,€òòÐ ¢!ò ÐNew€Criminal€Procedureóó,€ðð€400,€at€246€(4thòòóó€ed.€1895).€€In€other€words,€the€allegation€is€aÐ Ž"Þ  Ðjurisdictional€prerequisite€to€the€courtððs€proceeding€with€the€case.€€This€requirement€has€beenÐ z#Ê! Ðcodified€in€Tennessee€since,€at€least,€1858.€€òòSeeóó€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€50€Tenn.€148€(1871);€Tenn.€CodeÐ f$¶" ÐAnn.€ðð€40„13„207.€Ð R%¢ # ÐÌà  àSimilarly€at€common€law,€the€state€was€required€at€trial€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ *'z"% Ðthat€the€offense€occurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€òòSeeóó€1€Bishop,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€400,€at€246;Ð (f#& ÐòòÔ_ÔArmisteadÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€43€Ala.€340€(1869);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€69€Iowa€623,€29€Ô_ÔN.W.Ô_Ô€754€(1886).€€In€thisÐ )R$' Ðrespect,€it€appears€that€as€a€matter€of€historical€practice,€Tennessee€juries€were€instructed€in€murderÐ î)>%( Ðcases€in€the€nature€of€the€following€regarding€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€the€burden€of€proof:Ð Ú**&) Ðâ âÐ Æ+'*ý ÐÔ_Ôà8  àà ` àYou€enter€upon€this€investigation€with€the€presumption€that€the€defendant€wasÐ ° Ðnot€guilty€of€any€crime€and€this€presumption€stands€as€a€witness€for€him€until€it€isÐ œì Ðrebutted€and€overturned€by€competent€and€credible€proof.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€therefore€incumbent€upon€the€State,€before€you€can€convict€the€defendant,Ð `° Ðto€establish,€to€your€satisfaction,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtð!ðÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(1)€What€the€law€calls€the€corpus€delicti,€the€body€of€the€crime;€that€is,€thatÐ $ t Ð[the€deceased]€has€been€killed.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(2)€òòThe€venue;€that€is,€that€he€was€killed€in€the€County€of€___,€and€State€ofÐ è 8  ÐTennessee,€and€before€the€finding€of€the€indictmentóó.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(3)€That€the€defendant€killed€him,€and€that€the€killing€was€done€in€suchÐ ¬ü  Ðmanner,€by€such€means,€and€under€such€circumstances€as€would€make€him€guiltyÐ ˜è  Ðunder€the€law€of€some€one€of€the€grades€of€felonious€homicides€heretofore€definedÐ „Ô  Ðand€explained€to€you.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòArterburn€v.€Stateóó,€216€Tenn.€240,€257,€391€S.W.2d€648,€656€(1965)€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòe.g.,óóÐ H˜ ÐW.€J.€Smith,€òòTennessee€Jury€Instructions:€Criminal€Casesóó,€28,€92,€133€(1965).€€The€underlinedÐ 4„ Ðportion€dealt€with€venue,€territorial€jurisdiction,€and€personal€case€jurisdiction€in€one€short€passageÐ  p Ðwith€each€to€be€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Such€a€standard€of€proof€for€these€judicial€facts,Ð  \ Ðincluding€venue,€originated€in€the€English€common€law.€€òòSeeóó€1€Bishop,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€384,€at€234„35.òòóóÐ øH ÐÌà  àInterestingly,€the€instruction€became€the€accepted€practice€even€though€venue€had€beenÐ Ð  Ðdetermined€in€Tennessee€to€require€only€proof€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòNorris€v.Ð ¼  ÐStateóó,€127€Tenn.€437,€439„40,€155€S.W.€165,€165„66€(1913)€(concluding€that€venue€is€not€an€elementÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€crime€charged€and,€being€a€matter€of€jurisdiction,€must€only€be€proved€by€a€preponderance€ofÐ ”ä Ðthe€evidence).€€In€fact,€the€following€instruction€was€an€option€provided€by€the€Committee€on€PatternÐ €Ð ÐJury€Instructions€until€1992:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€state€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€all€of€the€elements€of€theÐ D!” Ðcrime€charged,€that€the€crime,€if€in€fact€committed,€was€committed€by€this€defendantÐ 0"€  Ðin€___€County,€Tennessee,€and€that€it€was€committed€before€the€finding€and€returningÐ #l! Ðof€the€indictment€in€this€case.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌT.P.I.ð!ðCRIM.€2.04€(2d€òòóóed.€1988).€€The€Committee€Comments€reflect€that€the€Committee€chose€toÐ à%0!$ Ðinclude€venue€in€this€instruction€ð ðin€conformity€with€the€traditional€manner€in€which€this€questionÐ Ì&"% Ðis€charged€in€Tennessee.ðð€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€contrast€to€venue,€the€standard€for€proving€territorial€jurisdiction€ð!ð€that€the€offenseÐ )à$( Ðoccurred€in€the€state€of€Tennessee€ð!ð€was€viewed€to€be€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Beallóó,Ð |*Ì%) Ð729€S.W.2d€270,€271€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Thus,€two€material€facts€that€are€essentiallyÐ h+¸&* Ðjurisdictional€in€nature,€i.e.,€the€offense€occurring€in€the€state€of€Tennessee€and€before€the€return€ofÐ ° Ðthe€charging€instrument,€were€required€to€be€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€while€a€third€fact€ofÐ œì Ða€jurisdictional€nature,€i.e.,€venue,€was€required€to€be€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€ð!ðÐ ˆØ Ðbecause€of€its€jurisdictional€nature.€€òòNorrisóó,€127€Tenn.€at€440,€155€S.W.€at€166.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€enactment€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201€in€1989€codified€the€common€law€burdenÐ L œ Ðof€proof€for€showing€that€the€offense€was€committed€before€the€return€of€the€charging€instrument,Ð 8 ˆ Ðbut€it€also€states€the€following:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà ` à(f)€If€the€issue€is€raised€in€defense,€no€person€shall€be€convicted€of€an€offenseÐ ü L  Ðunless€jurisdiction€and€the€commission€of€the€offense€within€the€time€period€specifiedÐ è 8  Ðin€title€40,€chapter€2,€are€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€state:€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àSubsection€(f)€states€that€jurisdiction€and€time€limitations€need€be€proven€only€inÐ „Ô  Ðcases€where€those€issues€are€raised€by€the€defendant.€€Once€these€issues€are€raised,Ð pÀ Ðthe€state€must€prove€proper€jurisdiction€and€timely€prosecution€by€a€preponderanceÐ \¬ Ðof€the€evidence.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌThus,€the€statute€may€well€have€made€the€standard€for€proving€territorial€jurisdiction€to€be€that€of€Ð  p Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€In€other€words,€we€now€have€the€jurisdictional€facts€of€venue€andÐ  \ Ðterritory€being€proved€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€any€event,€the€initial€point€to€be€made€is€that€even€assuming€that€the€majority€opinionððsÐ Ð  Ðview€of€the€evidence€is€correct,€the€failure€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€offensesÐ ¼  Ðoccurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment€would€only€be€a€jurisdictional€deficiency€rendering€theÐ ¨ø Ðcase€a€nullity.€€This€means€under€Tennessee€law€that€no€double€jeopardy€bar€exists€to€the€defendantððsÐ ”ä Ðretrial.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€641€S.W.€890,€893€(Tenn.€1982)€(holding€that€a€voidÐ €Ð Ðprosecution€provides€no€constitutional€bar€to€reprosecution);€òòKelly€v.€Stateóó,€202€Tenn.€660,€308Ð l¼ ÐS.W.2d€415€(1957)€(remanding€case€for€new€trial€upon€determining€that€state€failed€to€prove€venue).€Ð X ¨ ÐIn€this€respect,€I€do€not€believe€that€the€statute€elevates€this€jurisdictional€requirement€to€a€levelÐ D!” Ðequivalent€to€a€material€element€of€the€offense€charged€for€double€jeopardy€purposes.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAs€for€the€circumstances€in€the€present€case,€the€concerns€of€the€majority€opinion€would€haveÐ $X" Ðbeen€dispelled€if€the€trial€court€and€the€prosecutor€had€relied€upon€the€historical€practice€of€€readingÐ ô$D # Ðthe€indictment€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€Caruthersðð€òòHistory€of€a€Lawsuitóó,€ðð€740,€at€893€(Sam€B.€Gilreath€&Ð à%0!$ ÐBobby€R.€Alderholt€eds.,€8thòòóó€ed.€1963),€ðð€681,€at€666€(Sam€B.€Gilreath€ed.,€6thòòóó€ed.€1937).ò òó ó€€ThisÐ Ì&"% Ðwould€have€advised€the€jury€of€the€date€of€the€return€of€the€indictment€in€relation€to€the€allegationsÐ ¸'#& Ðregarding€the€time€of€the€offense.€€In€fact,€given€the€proof€requirements€placed€upon€the€state€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcriminal€cases,€I€would€view€the€reading€of€the€indictment€ordinarily€to€be€a€necessary€procedure,Ð )à$( Ðnot€merely€a€preferred€one.€òòóóÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àOn€the€other€hand,€I€believe€the€evidence€in€the€present€case€sufficiently€shows€that€theÐ ° Ðoffenses€were€committed€before€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€The€evidence€reflects€that€the€victimÐ œì Ðwas€killed€on€or€about€July€10,€1994.€€The€defendant€and€others€testified€that€the€victimððs€body€wasÐ ˆØ Ðfound€on€July€27,€1994,€during€the€execution€of€a€search€warrant€on€the€defendantððs€property.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€also€acknowledged€that€he€was€charged€with€the€murder€about€a€week€after€his€propertyÐ `° Ðwas€searched.€€I€believe€that€the€jury€could€easily€find€from€this€evidence€that€the€murder€occurredÐ L œ Ðbefore€a€formal€charge€was€brought,€even€though€the€jury€may€not€have€been€shown€the€exact€dateÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€indictment€was€returned.€€Therefore,€I€would€conclude€that€jurisdiction€existed€for€the€trial€courtÐ $ t Ðto€try€the€defendant€and€impose€a€judgment€in€this€case.€€Otherwise,€as€previously€stated,€I€join€inÐ  ` Ðthe€reversal€of€the€convictions€and€the€remand€of€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€Ð ü L  Ðò òÌó óÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE