ÿWPCœ! 9# . %9 0 \?w@›4Ûï 0 þ 0DžâUFêÆ0UFö 0J< 0T† 0^Ú 0h8 0r  0| 0†Ž 0 1u¤ 0d AQ} BÎ 0Dë 0@/ 0Do D/³ Bâ D3ÿ U62 B)h DC‘ AMÔ U*!_K"ªýÌÌɶ•v~KvÓɘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎX(4$V$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  Ñ ÐÑEÒÓÔÕÖרӀäWX$3|xæ(P(3«ª$¤¤Ý ƒ$V!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó.Courier New RegularƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd"/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ15,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€prior€indictment€returned€on€October€5,€1992,€wasÏsuperseded€by€this€later€indictment.Ì óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝErnest€Vickers,€III,€is€not€a€party€to€this€appeal.Ì ÂÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý(b)€Prosecutions€for€any€offense€punishable€by€imprisonmentÏin€the€penitentiary€when€the€punishment€is€expressly€limited€toÏfive€(5)€years€of€less,€shall€be€commenced€within€two€(2)€yearsÏnext€after€the€commission€of€the€offense,€.€.€.€.€ÌÌà à(d)€Prosecution€for€any€offense€punishable€by€imprisonment€inÏthe€penitentiary,€other€than€as€specified€in€subsections€(a),€(b)Ïor€(c),€shall€be€commenced€within€four€(4)€years€next€after€theÏcommission€of€the€offense.€ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101€(Supp.€1987).Ì ¬Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBoone€has€raised€three€other€issues.€€First,€he€asserts€thatÏthe€State€is€barred€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€from€appealing€theÏdismissal€of€count€two€because€it€waited€until€he€was€acquitted€atÏtrial€of€count€one.€€This€issue€is€meritless.€€Although€the€StateÏcould€have€brought€an€interlocutory€appeal€of€the€trial€court'sÏdecision€dismissing€count€two€under€either€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€orÏ10,€it€was€not€required€to€do€so.€€Rule€3(c)(1)€provides€that€theÏState€has€an€appeal€of€right€from€an€order€of€the€trial€court€ð ðtheÏsubstantive€effect€of€which€results€in€dismissing€an€indictment,Ïinformation,€or€complaint.ðð€€Until€the€trial€court€acquitted€BooneÏon€count€one,€the€pretrial€dismissal€of€count€two€did€not€have€theÏsubstantive€effect€of€dismissing€the€indictment€against€him.ÌÌà àSecond,€Boone€contends€that€the€judgment€of€acquittal€onÏcount€one€bars€the€State€from€retrying€him€under€collateralÏestoppel€or€double€jeopardy€principles.€€Third,€he€contends€thatÏthe€language€of€count€two€is€insufficient€to€charge€conspiracy€toÏcommit€an€offense€against€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Because€theÏtrial€court€has€not€had€the€opportunity€to€rule€on€these€issues,Ïwe€will€follow€the€lead€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€andÏdecline€to€address€them.€€ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ P ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€eXXdÖdÈ7ÑÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÙ€ÙßR€02/A1-j|` ‚- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà àà àœ€)›à àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€)›à àÌà àAppelleeà àà àà àà àœ€)›à àFILED:€œ€JUNE€15,€1998›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€)›à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà àœ€)›à àHENDERSON€COUNTY€€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€)›à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€)›à àHON.€FRANKLIN€MURCHISON,ÌJACQUELINE€œDEANNA€ALEXANDER€VICKERS€)›à àà àJUDGEÌœand€WILLIAM›€J.€œBOONEà àà àà à€)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€)à àNO.€02„S„01„9610„CC„00092›Ìà àAppellantsà àà àà àœ€)›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellants:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:óóÌÌPATRICK€MARTIN€€€€à àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€€€ÌJackson,€Tennessee€€€à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ(For€Appellant€Vickers)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌHENRY€HAILE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌNashville,€Tennessee€€œ€›Ì€œand›à àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€M.€œHIMMELREICHÌCARTHEL€L.€SMITH,€JR.à àà àà àLAURA€DYKES›ÌœLexington,€TNà àà à›à àà àà àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌœ(For€Appellant€Boone)Ìà àà àà à›à àà àà àALBERT€L.€PARTEE,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSenior€CounselÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€G.€WOODALLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòOPINIONÌÌÌÌóóÌÌÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€JUDGMENT€AFFIRMED›à àà àà àBIRCH,€J.Ô€-¼ÔÌÓÓÔ€-XÔà àWe€granted€permission€to€appeal€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï11€to€the€appellants,€Jacqueline€Deanna€Alexander€Vickers€andÏWilliam€J.€Boone.€€The€issue€is€whether€a€trial€court€may€conductÏa€pretrial€evidentiary€hearing,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12,Ïto€determine€the€evidentiary€sufficiency€relevant€to€the€tollingÏof€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Because€the€statute€of€limitationsÏissue€presented€herein€is€not€one€ð ðwhich€is€capable€ofÏdetermination€without€the€trial€of€the€general€œissue,ð𛀜we›€concludeÏthat€it€should€have€been€submitted€to€the€jury.€€Accordingly,€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.€€Ì€€€€€€€ÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€an€eighteen„count€indictment€returned€on€February€1,Ï1993,× ƒ3 ××  ×€Vickers,€her€husband,€Ernest€Vickers,€III,× ƒ4 ××  ×€and€accountantÏWilliam€J.€Boone€were€charged€with€various€counts€of€securitiesÏfraud,€conspiracy€to€commit€securities€fraud,€œgrand›€œlarceny,›Ïfraudulent€appropriation,€and€obtaining€money€by€false€pretenses.€ÏThe€charges€arose€out€of€the€operation€of€First€NationalÏBancshares€Financial€Services,€Inc.€(Financial€Services),€aÏcompany€owned€by€Vickersðð€husband.€€ÌÌà àBoone€was€charged€with€securities€fraud€in€count€one€andÏconspiracy€to€commit€securities€fraud€in€count€two.€€The€factsÏsupporting€these€charges€involved€the€filing€of€a€false€prospectusÏof€Financial€Services€with€the€Commissioner€of€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Commerce€and€Insurance€on€or€about€January€11,€1988.€ÏVickers€was€charged€in€counts€six,€seven,€and€eight€withÏsecurities€fraud,€fraudulent€appropriation,€and€grand€larceny.€ÏThe€facts€supporting€these€charges€related€to€undisclosed€self„dealing€in€the€sale€to€Financial€Services€of€certain€property.€ÍThe€fraudulent€conduct€surrounding€this€sale€was€alleged€to€haveÏoccurred€on€diverse€days€between€April€14,€1987,€and€May€14,€1987.€ÌÌà àThe€State€alleged€that€the€various€offenses€occurredÏbetween€April€14,€1987,€and€January€11,€1988,€and€an€indictmentÏwas€returned€October€œ5,›€1992.€€Because€a€four„year€limitationsÏperiod€applies€to€the€offenses€charged€in€counts€one,€six,€seven,Ïand€eight,€and€a€two„year€limitations€period€applies€to€theÏoffense€charged€in€count€two,€the€State€is€consequently€barredÏfrom€prosecuting€the€appellants€unless€it€can€show€that€theÏlimitations€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101€(1982),× ƒ5 ××  ×€has€beenÏtolled.€€The€State€alleged€in€the€indictment€that€the€statute€wasÏtolled€by€the€appellantsðð€concealment€of€the€offenses.€€Count€oneÏprovided:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€statute€of€limitations€for€thisÏoffense€was€tolled€until€SeptemberÏ28,€1990,€during€which€timeÏdefendants€and€their€agents€andÏemployees€concealed€the€facts€ofÏthis€crime€by€continuing€to€makeÏmaterial€omissions€and€untrueÏstatements€in€written€and€oralÏcommunications€to€the€commissionerÏand€the€commissioner'sÏrepresentatives,€by€delivering€orÏcausing€misleading€prospectuses€toÏbe€delivered€to€investors€withoutÏinforming€them€of€their€trueÏintentions€and€past€acts,€and€byÏcausing€their€agents€to€obtainÏwaivers€from€investors€of€receipt€ofÏprospectuses.ÌÓÓÌCounts€two,€six,€seven,€and€eight€contained€similar€tollingÏlanguage.ÌÌà àThe€appellants€moved€to€dismiss€the€indictment€asÏuntimely.€€The€trial€court€initially€held€that€the€StateððsÏallegations€of€concealment€were€legally€sufficient€to€toll€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€€Subsequently,€over€the€Stateððs€objection,Ïthe€trial€court€held€a€pretrial€hearing€in€order€to€make€findingsÏof€fact€on€the€issue€of€concealment.€€As€stated€by€the€court,€theÏsole€question€was€ð ðwhether€œthere›€is€any€evidence€upon€which€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€œcould›€œbase›€a€finding€that€the€defendants,Íor€any€of€them,€concealed€the€crimes€alleged€in€the€indictment€inÏa€manner€which€would€toll€the€running€of€the€statute€ofÏœlimitations.ðð›ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€a€lengthy€pretrial€hearing,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€the€State€became€aware€of€the€appellantsððÏconduct€no€later€than€September€28,€1990,€the€date€FinancialÏServices€was€placed€into€receivership€on€the€motion€of€StateÏagents.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€there€could€have€been€noÏactive€concealment€after€that€date.€€Because€the€limitationsÏperiod€for€the€conspiracy€charge€is€two€years,€the€court€held€thatÏcount€two€was€time„barred.€€Further,€the€court€found€no€evidenceÏof€any€concealment€on€the€part€of€Vickers;€therefore,€all€chargesÏagainst€her€were€dismissed.€€As€to€count€one,€the€remaining€countÏagainst€Boone,€the€court€found€some€proof€that€œBoone›€œconcealed›€theÏtrue€financial€status€of€Financial€Services;€consequently,€theÏcourt€held€that€the€jury€must€decide€the€statute€of€limitationsÏissue€in€count€one.€ÌÌà àBoone€went€to€trial€on€count€one,€and€Vickersðð€husbandÏwent€to€trial€on€the€remaining€counts.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÍStateððs€proof,€the€court€granted€Booneððs€motion€for€a€judgment€ofÏacquittal€on€count€one€on€grounds€of€insufficient€evidence€andÏlack€of€proof€of€concealment.€€The€jury€acquitted€Vickersðð€husbandÏon€counts€three€through€eighteen,€but€was€unable€to€reach€aÏverdict€as€to€count€one.€€The€State€then€appealed€the€pretrialÏdismissal€of€count€two€against€Boone€and€counts€six,€seven,€andÏeight€against€Vickers.€€The€State€did€not€appeal€as€to€any€chargesÏagainst€Vickerððs€husband.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversedÏand€remanded,€finding€that€the€question€whether€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€was€tolled€by€concealment€is€a€question€of€fact€thatÏshould€have€been€submitted€to€the€jury.ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àœAs›€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized€in€itsÏdecision,€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€œestablish›€theÏStateððs€right€to€a€jury€œtrial.›€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5,€AdvisoryÏCommission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Brackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€936,€939€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€Specifically,€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(c)(1)€aÏdefendant€may€submit€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€general€sessionsÏcourt€in€misdemeanor€cases,€but€only€if€the€district€attorneyÍgeneral€does€not€object.€€Further,€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€23€aÏdefendant€cannot€waive€the€right€to€a€trial€by€jury€unless€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€and€the€court€consent€to€the€waiver.€ÏœHaving›€recognized€the€Stateððs€right€to€a€jury€trial,€we€mustÏdetermine€whether€the€trial€court€had€authority€to€deny€that€rightÏin€the€context€of€a€statute€of€limitations€issue.€Ìœ›Ìà àWhether€the€trial€court€had€authority€under€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€12€to€resolve€the€statute€of€limitations€issue€is€aÏquestion€of€law,€which€we€review€òòde€novoóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940ÏS.W.2d€558,€561€(Tenn.€1997).€€Prior€to€the€adoption€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€in€1978,€a€statute€ofÏlimitations€defense€was€one€to€be€established€only€by€proof€atÏtrial.€€In€òòState€v.€Landisóó,€177€Tenn.€304,€145€S.W.2d€1032€(1941),Ïthis€Court€overturned€the€pretrial€dismissal€of€an€indictment€forÏuntimeliness,€because€that€was€a€factual€issue€for€the€jury€toÏdecide.€€However,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12€has€modified€the€common€lawÏrule.€€The€relevant€portions€of€Rule€12€provide:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à€(b)€Pretrial€Motions.€€Any€defense,Ïobjection,€or€request€which€isÏcapable€of€determination€without€theÏtrial€of€the€general€issue€may€beÏraised€before€trial€by€motion.€ÍMotions€may€be€written€or€oral€atÏthe€discretion€of€the€judge.€€TheÏfollowing€must€be€raised€prior€toÏtrial:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€(1)€Defenses€and€objections€basedÏon€defects€in€the€institution€of€theÏprosecution;€orÌÌà8 àà8 à€(2)€Defenses€and€objections€basedÏon€defects€in€the€indictment,Ïpresentment€or€information€(otherÏthan€that€it€fails€to€showÏjurisdiction€in€the€court€or€toÏcharge€an€offense€which€objectionsÏshall€be€noticed€by€the€court€at€anyÏtime€during€the€pendency€of€theÏproceedings);€orÌà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 à€(3)€Motions€to€suppress€evidence;ÏorÌÌà8 àà8 à€(4)€Requests€for€discovery€underÏRule€16;€orÌÌà8 àà8 à€(5)€Requests€for€a€severance€orÏconsolidation€of€charges€orÏdefendants€under€Rule€14.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€.€.€.€ÌÌ€à8 àà8 à€(e)€Ruling€on€Motion.€€A€motionÏmade€before€trial€shall€beÏdetermined€before€trial€unless€theÏcourt,€for€good€cause,€orders€thatÏit€be€deferred€for€determination€atÏthe€trial€of€the€general€issue€orÏuntil€after€verdict,€but€no€suchÏdetermination€shall€be€deferred€if€aÏparty's€right€to€appeal€is€adverselyÏaffected.€€Where€factual€issues€areÏinvolved€in€determining€a€motion,Íthe€court€shall€state€its€essentialÏfindings€on€the€record.ÓÓÌÌà àThus,€under€Rule€12€there€are€five€issues€which€òòmustóó€beÏraised€before€trial.€€All€other€issues,€including€statute€ofÏlimitations€issues,€òòmayóó€be€raised€before€trial,€but€only€if€theyÏare€ð ðcapable€of€determination€without€the€trial€of€the€generalÏissue.ðð€€Once€an€issue€is€properly€raised,€the€trial€court€mustÏmake€a€determination€before€trial,€unless€there€is€good€cause€toÏdefer€the€issue€to€the€jury.€€The€dispositive€question€in€thisÏcase,€then,€is€whether€a€determination€of€the€limitations€issueÏwill€involve€a€determination€of€ð ðthe€general€issue.ðð€€€€€ÌÌà àBecause€there€is€no€Tennessee€law€directly€on€point,€weÏturn€to€federal€law€for€guidance€in€answering€this€question.€ÏœTennesseeððs›€Rule€12€œis›€identical€to€its€federal€counterpart,€Fed.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€12.€€The€Advisory€Committee€Notes€to€the€federal€ruleÏexplain€that€the€objections€and€defenses€which€may€be€raised€atÏthe€defendantððs€option€include:€€ð ðsuch€matters€as€former€jeopardy,Ïformer€conviction,€former€acquittal,€òòstatute€of€limitationsóó,Ïimmunity,€lack€of€jurisdiction,€failure€of€indictment€orÏinformation€to€state€an€offense,€etc.ðð€€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,Íwhen€a€statute€of€limitations€question€is€raised€in€federal€courtÏprior€to€trial,€the€trial€court€has€the€authority€to€decide€it.€ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Wilsonóó,€26€F.3d€142,€159€(D.C.€Cir.€1994)(òòquotingóóÏ1€Charles€Alan€Wright,€Federal€Practice€and€Procedure,€ðð€193,€p.Ï708€(2d€ed.€1982)),€œòòcert.›€deniedóó,€5114€U.S.€1051,€115€S.€Ct.€1430,Ï131€L.€Ed.2d.€311€œ(1995).›€ÌÌà àThe€federal€courtsðð€authority€to€decide€a€limitationsÏissue€before€trial€is€not€absolute,€however.€€If€the€defense€isÏsubstantially€founded€upon€and€intertwined€with€factual€evidenceÏof€the€alleged€offense€that€will€necessarily€be€introduced€atÏtrial,€it€falls€within€the€province€of€the€ultimate€finder€ofÏfact,€and€ruling€should€be€deferred€until€trial.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòWilsonóó,€26ÏF.3d€at€159;€òòUnited€States€v.€Blackwellóó,€954€F.€Supp.€944,€954Ï(D.N.J.€1997).€€ð ððð[G]ood€causeðð€exists,€and€indeed€a€decision€on€aÏmotion€should€be€deferred,€if€disposing€of€the€motion€involvesÏdeciding€issues€of€fact€that€are€inevitably€bound€up€with€evidenceÏabout€the€alleged€offense€itself.ðð€€òòWilsonóó,€26€F.3d€at€159.€€OnÏthe€other€hand,€a€pretrial€determination€of€the€limitationsÏdefense€is€appropriate€when€a€trial€of€the€facts€surrounding€theÏalleged€offense€would€be€of€no€assistance€in€determining€theÍvalidity€of€the€defense.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Conleyóó,€859€F.€Supp.Ï909,€927„28€(W.D.€Pa.€1994)€(òòquotingóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Covingtonóó,Ï395€U.S.€57,€60,€89€S.€Ct.€1559,€1561,€23€L.€Ed.2d€94,€99€(1969)).€ÏFor€example,€if€the€issue€revolves€solely€around€the€date€aÏparticular€offense€occurred,€then€the€matter€can€certainly€beÏresolved€on€the€motion€before€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Dolanóó,Ï189€B.R.€484,€487€(D.€Neb.€1995),€òòaff'dóó€120€F.3d€856€(8th€CirÏ1997).ÌÌà àWe€find€the€above„described€federal€rule€to€be€aÏsuitable€standard€for€ascertaining€whether€the€limitations€issueÏis€ð ðcapable€of€determination€without€œthe€trial›€of€the€generalÏissue,ðð€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€12.€€Turning€now€to€its€applicationÏin€œthis›€case,€the€facts€supporting€the€charge€against€Boone€ofÏconspiracy€to€commit€securities€fraud€involve€the€filing€of€aÏfalse€prospectus€with€the€Commissioner€of€Commerce.€€Similarly,Ïthe€facts€alleged€to€toll€the€limitations€statute€involveÏconcealment€of€the€fraud€through€ð ðmaterial€omissions€and€untrueÏstatements€in€written€and€oral€communications€to€theÏcommissioner.ðð€€The€State€further€alleged€that€Boone€concealed€theÏfraud€by€delivering€false€prospectuses€to€investors.€€Under€theseÍfacts,€we€find€that€the€alleged€concealment€as€a€practical€matterÏis€nothing€more€than€a€continuation€of€the€fraud€for€which€he€isÏcharged.€€€€ÌÌà àœNext,›€the€facts€supporting€the€charges€against€Vickers„„securities€fraud,€fraudulent€appropriation,€and€grand€larceny„„involve€ð ðundisclosed€self„dealingðð€in€the€sale€of€real€estate€toÏFinancial€Services.€€The€facts€alleged€to€toll€the€limitationsÏstatute€again€involve€concealment€of€the€offenses€throughÏomissions€and€untrue€statements€made€to€the€commissioner€andÏthrough€the€delivering€of€false€prospectuses€to€investors.€€As€weÏunderstand€the€allegations€against€Vickers,€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€was€allegedly€tolled€by€the€continuing€nondisclosureÏof€the€ð ðundisclosed€self„dealing.ððÌÌà àClearly,€this€is€not€a€case€where€the€question€ofÏtimeliness€concerns€only€the€date€of€the€offense€or€some€otherÏfact€unrelated€to€the€appellantsðð€guilt€or€innocence.€€Rather,€theÏsame€evidence€which€would€prove€concealment€and€toll€theÏlimitations€statute€would€also€tend€to€prove€guilt€of€the€offensesÏcharged.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€the€statute€of€limitationsÍissue€should€have€been€presented€to€the€jury,€because€the€factualÏevidence€of€the€alleged€offenses€is€too€closely€intertwined€withÏthe€evidence€of€the€appellantsðð€alleged€concealment€of€thoseÏoffenses.€òòÌÌóóà àIn€sum,€trial€courts€generally€may€conduct€pretrialÏevidentiary€hearings€on€statute€of€limitations€issues,€pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)€and€(e),€but€only€when€a€determination€canÏbe€made€without€involving€the€general€issue€of€guilt€or€innocence.€ÏHere,€this€standard€was€not€satisfied.€€Consequently,€the€trialÏcourtððs€pretrial€determination€of€the€limitations€issue€violatedÏœRule›€œ12.›€€The€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€isÏaccordingly€affirmed,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€courtÍso€that€the€issues€may€be€resolved€by€the€jury.× ƒ6 ××  ×€ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Holder,€JJ.ÌReid,€S.J.