State of Tennessee v. Louis Grieco
E2015-01110-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- On Aug. 24, 2013 Officer Jeff Boling stopped Louis Grieco for suspected DUI, arrested him, and obtained a sworn affidavit of complaint signed before a notary public the same day.
- On Aug. 26, 2013 a general sessions judge made a probable-cause determination based on the affidavit; the record contains no arrest warrant.
- Grieco waived his preliminary hearing and was bound over to the grand jury on Oct. 6, 2014.
- The grand jury indicted Grieco for misdemeanor DUI on Jan. 21, 2015—more than one year after the offense.
- Grieco moved to dismiss as time-barred, arguing the affidavit was invalid because it was sworn before a notary rather than in the presence of a magistrate or authorized clerk; the trial court granted dismissal.
- The State appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the affidavit (and any warrant based on it) was invalid and prosecution was not commenced within the one-year statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Grieco's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an affidavit sworn before a notary satisfied Rule 3 / T.C.A. § 40-6-203 for a valid affidavit of complaint and thus could commence prosecution | The notary-sworn affidavit, later reviewed by the clerk/judge, was reliable and adequate; physical presence was not required to validate probable-cause determination | The affidavit was invalid because it was not made on oath before a magistrate or an authorized court clerk capable of making the probable-cause determination | The affidavit sworn before a notary was invalid under the statute and Rule 3; failure to comply invalidates the affidavit (and any resulting warrant) |
| Whether an arrest warrant existed or was properly in the record to commence prosecution | An arrest warrant (or an equivalent charging instrument) commenced the prosecution | No valid arrest warrant is in the record; any warrant based on the invalid affidavit would be void | No valid arrest warrant appears in the record; even if issued, a warrant based on the invalid affidavit would be invalid |
| Whether Grieco’s later appearance/waiver in general sessions or the grand jury indictment tolled/commenced the prosecution within the one-year statute of limitations | The prosecution was commenced (by warrant or by events following the affidavit), so limitations did not bar the indictment | Because the affidavit was void, Grieco was never properly charged; his Oct. 6, 2014 waiver and the Jan. 21, 2015 indictment occurred after the one-year limitations period | A prosecution is not commenced by a court appearance or indictment if the underlying affidavit of complaint is void; the State failed to commence prosecution within one year, so dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395 (Tenn. 2008) (standard of review for legal questions: de novo)
- State v. McCloud, 310 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) (statute of limitations purpose and commencement principles)
- State v. Nielsen, 44 S.W.3d 496 (Tenn. 2001) (limitations period interpretation)
- State v. Ferrante, 269 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2008) (a void affidavit of complaint means defendant was never charged; a court appearance cannot commence prosecution absent a valid charging instrument)