You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State of Tennessee v. Robert Jason Burdick

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2010-00144-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; December 1, 2011; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the appellant was indicted for attempted aggravated rape, among other charges, following an incident in 1994. The prosecution commenced with a John Doe warrant supported by a DNA profile, which was later matched to the appellant after further investigation. The appellant contested the conviction, arguing that it was barred by the statute of limitations and that the affidavit of complaint lacked the necessary components to initiate prosecution. The court found that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause and that the John Doe warrant effectively initiated prosecution within the legally permissible timeframe. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that a DNA profile could toll the statute of limitations, referencing similar rulings from other jurisdictions. Ultimately, the appellant's conviction for attempted aggravated rape was upheld, with the court rejecting his statute of limitations defense and underscoring the validity of DNA-based identification in legal proceedings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Commencement of Prosecution

Application: The court found that a John Doe warrant supported by a DNA profile was sufficient to initiate prosecution within the statute of limitations.

Reasoning: The court found that the affidavit of complaint presented probable cause and that a John Doe warrant, supported by a DNA profile, was sufficient to initiate prosecution within the statute of limitations.

DNA Profile Tolling the Statute of Limitations

Application: The court held that a John Doe warrant with a DNA profile could toll the statute of limitations, aligning with practices in other jurisdictions.

Reasoning: The court ultimately held that such a warrant and DNA profile could validly initiate prosecution and toll the statute of limitations, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Statute of Limitations in Criminal Cases

Application: The court determined that prosecution for attempted aggravated rape must commence within eight years of the offense unless the statute of limitations is tolled.

Reasoning: The offense occurred on March 1, 1994, with the statute of limitations for aggravated rape expiring on March 1, 2009, and for attempted aggravated rape on March 1, 2002.

Validity of Affidavit as Warrant

Application: The court concluded that the affidavit was sufficient for warrant issuance based on the reliability of information from a citizen victim.

Reasoning: However, the court finds the affidavit sufficient for warrant issuance based on the reliability of information from a citizen victim.