State of Tennessee v. Robert Jason Burdick
395 S.W.3d 120
Tenn.2012Background
- Victim, a female attorney in Nashville, was attacked in 1994; DNA from her skin did not initially match any suspect in CODIS.
- In 2000, an affidavit of complaint identified an unknown suspect as 'John Doe' with a DNA profile; an arrest warrant GS122 issued within the eight-year limit.
- In 2008, fingerprints and DNA linked the suspect to Burdick; a superseding indictment in his name was issued in 2008.
- Burdick was tried and convicted of attempted aggravated rape; the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld that the John Doe warrant with the DNA profile was sufficient to commence within the statute of limitations.
- Burdick challenged (i) that a John Doe warrant was insufficient to commence within the eight-year limitation for attempted aggravated rape, and (ii) that it did not provide adequate notice.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the John Doe warrant identifying gender and a unique DNA profile commenced the prosecution within the applicable statute of limitations, and that the superseding indictment in Burdick’s proper name provided proper notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a John Doe DNA warrant commence prosecution within the statute of limitations? | State argues DNA-based John Doe suffices for commencement. | Burdick argues DNA profile alone does not provide notice or proper commencement. | Yes; DNA-identified John Doe warrant commences within the period. |
| Does the DNA-identified John Doe warrant provide adequate notice of the charge? | State contends notice is satisfied by DNA profile and John Doe designation. | Burdick contends DNA alone cannot notify of charges. | Yes; notice is satisfied, especially with subsequent superseding indictment in Burdick’s name. |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Cabell, 153 U.S. 78 (U.S. (1894)) (validates need for precise description in warrants)
- Dabney, 663 N.W.2d 366 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (DNA-based John Doe warrants can toll limitations)
- Danley, 853 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 2006) (John Doe with DNA profile tolls statute)
- Robinson, 224 P.3d 55 (Cal. 2010) (DNA-based John Doe indictment adequately identifies defendant)
- Dixon, 938 N.E.2d 878 (Mass. 2010) (DNA profile as near-absolute identifier; tolling effectiveness)
- Belt, 179 P.3d 443 (Kan. 2008) (John Doe warrants insufficient when DNA loci are incomplete)