Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals vacating Defendant's sentence and remanding for entry of a sentence reflecting a conviction of a Class D felony, rather than a Class E felony, holding that the Criminal Savings Statute applies to the amendments to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-105.Before Section 5 of the Public Safety Act of 2016 took effect and amended Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-105, the statute providing for grading of theft offenses, Defendant was convicted of theft of property in the amount of $1,000 or more but not less than $10,000. The conviction was a Class D felony at the time of the offense. The trial court applied the amended version of the statute in sentencing Defendant before the amendment's effective date, which graded theft of more than $1,000 but less than $2,500 as a Class E felony. The court of criminal appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for entry of a sentence reflecting a conviction of a Class D felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Criminal Savings Statute applies to the amendments to the theft grading statute, section 39-14-105; and (2) the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant under the amended version of the statute prior to its effective date. View "State v. Keese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of criminal appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' motion to suppress, holding that the warrantless search of a probationer's residence who is subject to a search condition does not require officers to have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity prior to conducting the search.Law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of the residence of a probationer and her husband, resulting in the discovery of illegal drugs and drug-related contraband. Pursuant to probation conditions imposed in a previous case, the probationer had agreed to a warrantless search of her person, property, or vehicle at any time. In affirming the trial court's decision to grant Defendants' motion to suppress, the court of criminal appeals concluded that the State was required to have reasonable suspicion to support the probation search and that the State lacked such suspicion in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because of the probation conditions to which the probationer was subject, the probation search of portions of the probationer's residence was constitutionally allowable; and (2) the search of probationer's husband's personal belongings located within Defendants' shared bedroom was proper pursuant to the doctrine of common authority. View "State v. Hamm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of five separate misdemeanor thefts aggregated into a single Class D felony, holding that the separate misdemeanor thefts were properly aggregated into a single felony charge and that the evidence sufficiently established that the separate thefts arose from a common scheme, purpose, intent, or enterprise.The separate misdemeanor thefts were aggregated into a single felony count pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-105(b)(1), which provides that, in a prosecution for theft of property, the State may charge multiple criminal acts committed against one or more victims as a single count of the criminal acts arose from a common scheme, purpose, intent or enterprise. On appeal, Defendant argued that the separate thefts may be aggregated only when the thefts are from the same owner, from the same location, and pursuant to a continuing criminal impulse or a single sustained larcenous scheme. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the statutory aggregation provision does not incorporate the limitations expressed in Byrd, and the aggregation of the five alleged thefts into one count in this case was not improper; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to aggregate the five alleged thefts into one count. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a handgun, holding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request for a jury instruction on the defense of necessity.The evidence presented at Defendant's criminal trial indicated that Defendant obtained a handgun during a physical altercation, during which the handgun fell from another individual's possession and dropped to the floor. The trial court denied Defendant's request for an instruction the defense of necessity. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, holding (1) the defense of necessity was fairly raised by the evidence, and the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury accordingly; and (2) Tennessee law does not preclude plenary review of a claim of error based on a trial court's failure to instruct the jury on a general defense when the request was not made in writing. View "State v. Cole-Pugh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals reversing the trial court's ruling that Defendant's statements during a post-polygraph interview were inadmissible pursuant to Tenn. R. Evid. 403, holding that the trial court did not erroneously assess the evidence or incorrectly evaluate the danger of unfair prejudice when determining whether to exclude Defendant's post-polygraph statements under Rule 403.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court concluded the Rule 403 balancing test within the parameters of its sound discretion and that the analysis by the court of criminal appeals essentially constituted a reweighing of the evidence before the trial court and a substitution of its judgment for that of the trial court. Because this approach was contrary to the Court's abuse of discretion standard of review, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. View "State v. McCaleb" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals declining to grant the State's request to abandon the doctrine of abatement ab initio, holding that, due to changes in Tennessee's public policy in the arena of victims' rights, the doctrine of abatement ab initio must be abandoned.During an appeal from his conviction, the defendant in this case died. The defendant's attorney filed a motion asking the Court of Criminal Appeals to apply the doctrine of abatement ab initio, which the Supreme Court adopted in Carver v. State, 398 S.W.2d 719 (Tenn. 1966). The doctrine stops all proceedings from the beginning and renders the defendant as if he or she had never been charged. The State opposed the motion and urged the appellate court to abandon the doctrine. The Court of Criminal Appeals declined to do so and abated Defendant's conviction. The Supreme Court overruled the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment, dismissed the appeal, and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that the doctrine of abatement ab initio must be abandoned and that, in this case, because there was no evidence that any interest would benefit from allowing the deceased defendant's appeal to continue, the appeal should be dismissed. View "State v. Al Mutory" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of felony reckless endangerment, which is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault as indicted in this case, holding that the mandates of Tenn. R Crim. P. 7(b)(1) were not followed in this case and that the actions of counsel did not rise to the level of causing an effective amendment to the indictment.The lower courts concluded that Defendant, through the actions of counsel, caused an effective amendment of the indictment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and dismissed the case, holding (1) Rule 7(b)(1) sets forth the procedure for amending an indictment with a defendant's counsel, and those mandates were not followed in this case; and (2) the actions of counsel amounted at most to acquiescence rather than an affirmative request for the trial court to consider felony reckless endangerment as a lesser offense. View "State v. Myers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court ruling that certain portions of the Public Safety Act of 2016 (the PSA) were facially unconstitutional on grounds of separation of powers, due process, and equal protection, holding that the constitutionality of the PSA provisions at issue was not ripe for consideration by the trial court.Defendant A.B. Price, Jr. attempted to plead nolo contendere to sexual battery, and defendant Victor Sims attempted to plead guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court declared the portions of the PSA facially unconstitutional, accepted Defendants' pleas, and inserted in each judgment the special conviction that the probated portion of defendants sentences were not subject to the PSA. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the constitutional issues identified and ruled upon by the courts below were not ripe for adjudication. View "State v. Price" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from Defendant's computer pursuant to a search warrant, holding that Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1007 does not require search warrants to be applied for by the office of the district attorney general.A police officer applied for and obtained the search warrant, by which pornographic images of minors were recovered from Defendant's computer. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that suppression was warranted because the search warrant was not applied for by the district attorney general. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search warrant and supporting affidavit were not required to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1007. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the grant of Defendant’s motion to suppress, the Supreme Court Court adopted the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), but nevertheless affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence, holding that neither of Defendant’s arrests fell within the good-faith exception.A police officer arrested Defendant without a warrant because he was on a list of individuals who had been barred from housing authority property. Upon performing a search incident to arrest, the officer seized marijuana from Defendant. Almost three weeks later, the same officer again arrested Defendant on the same property based on the same list and again seized marijuana from Defendant. When it was discovered that the list was incorrect and that Defendant’s name should have been removed before he was arrested, the trial court suppressed the evidence in both cases. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) it is appropriate at this point to adopt the good-faith exception set forth in Herring; but (2) the facts of this case did not support application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. View "State v. McElrath" on Justia Law