Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Terry Dominy was charged with three counts of aggravated rape. At trial, defendant was found guilty of the charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that the aggravated rape convictions were invalid due to a statutory exclusion in Tennessee law that precludes a prosecution for rape if the perpetrator is the spouse of the victim. The intermediate court modified defendant's convictions to spousal rape, acknowledging that spousal rape is not a lesser-included offense in the indicted offense. The court of criminal appeals affirmed, holding that the indictment charging aggravated rape was sufficient to support a conviction for spousal rape, a "lesser grade" offense under the supreme court's decision in State v. Trusty. The supreme court held (1) Trusty was overruled to the extent that it recognizes lesser grade offenses as distinct from lesser-included offenses and permits convictions of lesser grade offenses that are not lesser-included offenses embraced by the indictment; and (2) in light of the overruling of Trusty, the defendant's indictment was not sufficient to support a conviction for spousal rape. The court vacated the defendant's convictions, dismissed the indictments and remanded the case to the trial court. View "State v. Dominy" on Justia Law

Defendant Cedric Johnson was charged with committing an aggravated robbery and was separately charged with initiating a false police report. Within one month of being indicted for initiating a false police report, Defendant pled guilty to the offense. The trial record revealed that Defendant's car was used in the robbery, and in order to thwart discovery by the police, Defendant reported the car as stolen. The grand jury indicted Defendant for aggravated robbery. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the robbery indictment, arguing that he had already been prosecuted for filing the false report in connection with the robbery. The trial court granted Defendant's motion, and the State appealed. The issue before the Supreme Court pertained to offenses arising from the same criminal episode. In the Defendant's case, the Court found that the two offenses were not part of the same episode, and therefore, the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal of the robbery charge. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.