State of Tennessee v. Arthur Graham and Michelle Graham, W2015-02410-CCA-R3-CD

Arthur and Michelle Graham operated Cuddles Care Services, a children’s therapy provider paid by state-managed plans; state alleged fraudulent billing with overpayments exceeding $200,000.
Indictment for theft (>= $60,000) charged conduct between March 6, 2002 and October 31, 2003; returned August 31, 2010.
Federal authorities initially investigated (2003–2008); the U.S. Attorney’s Office delayed referral to state prosecutors until the relevant federal statute of limitations had run.
Defendants moved to dismiss for pre‑indictment delay violating speedy trial and due process rights and for statute‑of‑limitations bar; trial court first limited charges to post‑August 31, 2002 acts, later dismissed the whole indictment for pre‑indictment prejudice.
On appeal the State argued (1) speedy trial rights do not attach pre‑indictment, (2) Defendants failed to show State used delay to gain tactical advantage, and (3) the thefts could be aggregated for statute‑of‑limitations purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Grahams)	Held
Whether pre‑indictment delay violated the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right	Right to speedy trial did not accrue until indictment/arrest in 2010; no Sixth Amendment violation	Delay between alleged offenses (2002–2003) and indictment (2010) prejudiced ability to mount a defense	Court held speedy trial right did not attach pre‑indictment; reversal of dismissal (no Sixth Amendment violation)
Whether pre‑indictment delay violated due process	Delay was not engineered by state for tactical advantage; investigation by U.S. Atty. explained delay	Delay caused witness memory loss and lost evidence, producing unfairness amounting to due process violation	Court held defendants failed to show State used delay for tactical advantage or intentional prejudice; due process claim rejected; indictment reinstated
Whether statute of limitations barred pre‑August 31, 2002 acts / aggregation of thefts	The thefts may be aggregated as a single continuing scheme; statute runs from last act	Argued earlier acts were time‑barred and should be dismissed	Court held aggregation under continuing scheme doctrine permissible; statute runs from last act, indictment covers alleged series

State v. Hudgins, 188 S.W.3d 663 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (prejudice from witness memory loss relevant to delay claims)
State v. Utley, 956 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn. 1997) (speedy trial right accrues at indictment/arrest; pre‑indictment protections include due process and statutes of limitations)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (right to speedy trial arises upon arrest or formal charge; pre‑indictment delay analyzed under due process)
State v. Byrd, 968 S.W.2d 290 (Tenn. 1998) (permitting aggregation of multiple thefts into single indictment when part of a continuing scheme)