State of Tennessee v. Janice Darlene Helbert, E2015-02017-CCA-R9-CD

On Aug. 2, 2013, Officer Jackson issued Janice Helbert a citation for DUI and following too closely and signed an affidavit of complaint sworn before a notary public summarizing the alleged facts.
On Aug. 5, 2013, a Sullivan County clerk (via a deputy clerk) marked the affidavit indicating probable cause and that Helbert was issued a citation; no arrest warrant appears in the record.
Helbert waived a preliminary hearing and was bound over to the grand jury on Sept. 9, 2014; the grand jury returned a presentment (including the two misdemeanors) on Jan. 21, 2015.
Helbert moved to dismiss the two misdemeanor counts as time-barred, arguing the affidavit was void because it was sworn to a notary rather than to a magistrate or a neutral/detached clerk capable of taking the oath in the officer’s presence as required by Rule 3/T.C.A. § 40-6-203.
The trial court granted dismissal; the State appealed interlocutorily, arguing the notarized affidavit was a mere technical defect and that the prosecution was nonetheless commenced.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: the affidavit signed before a notary (not a magistrate/authorized clerk conducting the oath) did not satisfy Rule 3 and § 40-6-203, so the prosecution was not commenced within the one-year statute of limitations for misdemeanors.

Issue	State's Argument	Helbert's Argument	Held
Whether an affidavit sworn before a notary (and later reviewed/signed by a clerk not in the officer’s presence) satisfies Rule 3 and T.C.A. § 40-6-203 for a valid arrest warrant/charging instrument	The notarized affidavit is reliable; the lack of in-person oath before the clerk is a technical defect that should not void the affidavit or prevent commencement	The affidavit was not sworn before a magistrate or an authorized clerk at the time of the probable-cause determination as required, so it is invalid and cannot commence prosecution	Affidavit invalid: sworn before a notary does not meet Rule 3/§ 40-6-203; prosecution not commenced within the limitations period; dismissal affirmed
Whether Helbert’s appearance/waiver in general sessions (or the clerk’s later signing) commenced prosecution/tolled the statute of limitations	A defendant’s court appearance and the clerk’s subsequent probable-cause notation provided notice and commenced the prosecution	A void affidavit means there was no formal charge; therefore later appearance or clerk action cannot commence prosecution or toll limitations	A court appearance does not commence prosecution where the underlying affidavit/warrant is void; prosecution did not commence within one year

State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395 (Tenn. 2008) (standard of review for legal issues; de novo review)
State v. McCloud, 310 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) (statute of limitations purpose and when prosecution is commenced)
State v. Nielsen, 44 S.W.3d 496 (Tenn. 2001) (limitations period principles)
State v. Ferrante, 269 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2008) (court appearance commences prosecution only if defendant was properly charged; failure to comply with Rule 3/§ 40-6-203 invalidates affidavit/warrant)