Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

The subject of animals can be very divisive in modern day society. Some people treat them like family members and genuinely love and care for them as such; others view them as annoyances and entertain murderous thoughts when they are woken up at four in the morning by their neighbor’s dog deafeningly deterring some random disturbance in the night; still others simply don’t care one way or the other about animals. And then there are always those whose love for animals is based on how much their body parts would bring on the black market.

While that last category of animal appreciator may seem unusual, it is exactly the mindset of two teens arrested recently in Florida for allegedly going on a killing spree involving almost twenty horses. The teen was charged with armed burglary, animal cruelty, killing a registered breed horse, and breaking a fence. According to the article, the teen was among those who were butchering live horses statewide in an effort to sell the horses’ meat on the black market. According to AOL News, the meat sells for as much as $40 per pound, at least in part because some people believe horse meat can cure diseases like cancer and AIDS.

In Tennessee, intentionally killing an animal is basically treated as theft of property and punished according to the value of the animal if the killing of the animal is not justified. Under the Tennessee statute, one is only justified in killing an animal upon the reasonable belief that the animal is creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to that person, another person, or an animal owned by that person. Thus, killing an animal as described in the article above would be a criminal act in Tennessee, punished in the same manner as theft in Tennessee. Theft of Property ranges from a Class A Misdemeanor charge if the property is valued at less than $500 to a Class B Felony if the property is valued at $60,000 or more under T.C.A. section 39-14-105.

Continue reading "Intentional Killing of Animals in Tennessee" »

Sometimes it is the little things in life that cause the most frustration. This is particularly true when it comes to automobile travel. For example, it is extremely frustrating to sit at a red light for what seems like an eternity when your car is the only car at a four-way intersection. Likewise, sitting in traffic for hours is maddening, and when a police car, lights flashing, speeds happily by your inert vehicle on its way to its destination, it is hard not to feel a twinge of envy.

A twenty-one year-old security guard from Shreveport, Louisiana, knows this feeling all too well. Growing tired of the inconveniences of civilian life, the security guard decided to take matters into his own hands. He acquired a flashing red light to place on the dash of his vehicle, armed himself with a handgun, and set out to lay waste to all would-be impediments to his absolute vehicular freedom. Unfortunately for him, one of those impediments came in the form of Shreveport’s mayor.

When the mayor saw the flashing lights coming from the car behind him, he pulled over, expecting to see a police officer pull behind him or pass. Instead, he saw the security guard go by, became suspicious, and contacted the police. Police caught up with the security guard, and determined that he was impersonating a police officer for the purpose of maneuvering unimpeded through traffic. They then seized his flashing light and handgun, arrested him, and charged him with criminal impersonation.

Continue reading "Fake Cop Faced with Real Jail Time" »

Of all the rights protected by the American legal system, the right to life is the most fundamental and is thus protected in a myriad of ways. It also may be the most controversial, having the ability to spark furious debate on topics such as abortion, assisted suicide, and the death penalty. One important concept protecting the right to life in the death penalty arena is that the person awaiting execution must be competent to be executed.

Tennessee’s two-prong standard for determining whether or not a person is competent to be executed is currently at the forefront of an extremely controversial Tennessee murder case. In 1985, Gregory Thompson was convicted of murdering twenty-eight year-old Brenda Lane with a butcher knife. According to Thompson, he abducted and killed the victim so he could use her car because he believed a gang of Ku Klux Klan members was chasing him. Thompson has had an execution date set more than once, but his case remains unsettled because the issue of his competency to face execution keeps surfacing.

To be competent to face execution in Tennessee, a person must both understand that his execution is imminent and understand the reason for which he is being executed. In Mr. Thompson’s case, he has told psychologists and psychiatrists who examined him that an attempt at execution will not actually kill him but that he will survive the attempt and be retried for the crime at a later date by a professional jury. Mr. Thompson’s comments indicate that he not only fails to understand that his impending execution will end his life but also that he may not understand that he has been found guilty of a crime at all, instead believing that he has yet to face an appropriate jury.

Continue reading "Competency's Role in Executions" »

Americans often like to cite the various rights guaranteed them by the United States Constitution and with good reason; these guarantees protect and empower Americans in various ways. These rights, however, are anything but guaranteed. The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions, but this right, like any right, can be taken away if it is not used responsibly. A recent Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals case illustrates this idea.

Mr. Willis, the defendant, was charged with four counts of Tennessee first-degree murder and three counts of abusing corpses, and the State of Tennessee was seeking the death penalty. Mr. Willis, in an effort to delay his impending trial, attempted to get his appointed counsel to withdraw from representation so he would be appointed a different attorney and, more importantly, his trial date would be pushed back to give that attorney time to get familiar with the case. As trial dates approached, Mr. Willis would refuse to communicate with his attorney, would file complaints against his attorney with the Board of Professional Responsibility, or would attempt to sue his attorney in some fashion in order to get the court to dismiss the attorney and appoint someone else.

The first time Mr. Willis employed this tactic, the trial court had a lengthy discussion with him and explained to him that although he had a right to assistance of counsel, abuse of that right would lead to both its forfeiture and Mr. Willis representing himself in his murder trial. The court explained how difficult and dangerous it was for defendants to represent themselves, but Mr. Willis was apparently unconvinced.

Continue reading "Assistance of Counsel is Not an Absolute Right" »

When preparing to meet a long-lost biological parent for the first time, a child who was previously given up for adoption would presumably try to prepare themselves for all of the possible outcomes of the meeting. The reunion could be a joyous one where the child and the parent reconnect and begin making up for lost time. The reunion could also be an awkward one, where the two discover that they lack any sort of personal connection whatsoever. Or, as a child in Michigan recently experienced, the reunion could be part of a bizarre scheme by the parent to seduce and rape their own biological child.

Michigan police say a thirty-five year-old mother who gave her son up for adoption more than a decade ago recently used the internet to track him down, seduce him, and rape him. She has been arraigned on three charges of criminal sexual conduct for raping her biological son, who is only ten years-old. The mother maintains her innocence and is currently awaiting trial. Mental health experts consulted for comment about the case described the conduct as “an abomination” and voiced their concerns that the repercussions of the conduct may have long-lasting effects on the minor child.

Under Tennessee law, the mother could be faced with a litany of charges, the most serious being rape of a child under T.C.A. section 39-13-522. Rape of a child is defined as “unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim, if the victim is more than three (3) years of age but less than thirteen (13) years of age.

Continue reading "Mother Tracks Down, Rapes Son" »

Two mothers were recently arrested in New York for entering a written agreement to allow one mother’s thirteen year-old daughter to be romantically involved with the other mother’s nineteen year-old son. The purpose of the pact was to avoid statutory rape charges in the event that the girl became pregnant. While the mothers probably thought this was an effective way to facilitate such a relationship, the State of New York did not agree, and the two mothers were arrested and charged with child endangerment. Likewise, the nineteen year-old male was arrested and charged with several counts, including second-degree rape. Clearly, New York law does not allow either the consent of the victim or the victim’s guardian to legalize what would otherwise be an illegal relationship.

Tennessee law takes an identical stance with regard to issues of consent to statutory rape. The Tennessee statutory rape statute, T.C.A. section 39-13-506, only considers three factors in defining and classifying statutory rape (whether sexual penetration occurred, the age of the victim, and the age of the offender in relation to the age of the victim) and consent is markedly absent. This statute demonstrates that the clear public policy of the State of Tennessee is to protect minors who may be more easily influenced or may not understand the ramifications of their sexual conduct from abuse at the hands of those who may seek to exploit them.

Tennessee recognizes that a four or five year age difference can be significant in terms of mental and emotional maturity among adolescents, opening up the possibility that the older person in a relationship may be ready to engage in and cope with conduct in which their younger partner is not ready to participate. Given this focus placed on the potential immaturity of the victim, Tennessee has chosen not to consider that the victim may consent to the behavior as such consent could also be borne out of the same mentality.

Continue reading "Statutory Rape: Issues of Consent" »

When found guilty of a crime, whether by decision or plea, the next stage in the criminal process is sentencing. At this stage, defendants need skilled and experienced representation to ensure that their rehabilitation needs are considered and that a fair and just sentence is imposed. An unrepresented defendant or a defendant poorly represented risks excessive jail time and other penalties.

Alternative sentences authorized by law, include:

• Payment of a fine instead of prison time;


• Payment of restitution to victims instead of prison time;


• Suspended sentence upon a term of probation supervision that may include community service and/or restitution;


• Periodic confinement that may be served in a local jail or workhouse in conjunction with a term of probation;


• Work release;


• Community based alternatives in lieu of jail time (varies according to jurisdiction).

Continue reading "Alternative Sentencing" »

In the preceding article, I discussed the policy purposes underlying sentencing in Tennessee. This article provides more specific information on the considerations a court must apply when imposing penalties on a defendant—whether the penalty is incarceration, probation, community service or some other alternative sentencing arrangement.

When incarceration is considered by the judge as an option, the judge must consider whether confinement is necessary either:

1. to protect society by restraining the defendant who has a long criminal history,


2. to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense,


3. or to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses.

The judge must also determine whether measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant.

The judge is required to apply uniformity in sentencing. Accordingly, the judge must ensure that the sentence is no greater than that deserved for the offense committed and that the sentence imposed is the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which a sentence has been imposed. Inequalities in sentences unrelated to the purposes of sentencing should be avoided.

Continue reading "Sentencing Considerations" »

By way of introduction, I discuss in this entry the General Assembly’s express purposes in enacting the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act.

The Reform Act is the end result of comprehensive penal and sentencing reform legislation enacted in 1989 to address inconsistencies found in the penal code. Addressing these inconsistencies, the General Assembly set standards for crime classification and sentencing methodology. Principles underlying this unifying approach were also codified (or re-codified) in TCA 40-35-102 to ensure fairness and justice in sentencing procedures. Five principles are discussed below:

First, every defendant is to be punished by a sentence he or she justly deserves in relation to the seriousness of the offense. As will be seen, violent crimes like homicide and aggravated assault generally carry more severe consequences than other crimes. Furthermore, the seriousness of theft and vandalism offenses depends on the value of the property stolen or destroyed.

Second, defendants are assured fair and consistent treatment by eliminating unjustified disparities in sentencing and by providing a fair sense of predictability. In pursuit of this goal, the legislature examined the crimes in Tennessee and ranked them according to the perceived seriousness of each defense. The General Assembly created 5 classes of felonies (A through E) with each class carrying a defined prison and fine range. For example, the prison range for a Class E felony is one to 6 years, whereas the prison range for a Class A felony is 15 to 60 years. The General Assembly also created 3 separate ranges for misdemeanors.

Third, the goal of punishment is to prevent crime and promote respect for the law. Accordingly, sentences should provide an effective deterrent to those who are likely to violate the law, restrain defendants with lengthy criminal histories, encourage rehabilitation through alternative sentencing and correctional programs, and encouraging restitution to victims where appropriate.

Continue reading "Criminal Sentencing in Tennessee: Purposes of the Reform Act" »

In a series of articles over the next couple of weeks, I will be discussing some of the various aspects of Tennessee’s Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 (“Reform Act”). My goal in discussing this topic is to encourage people who have been charged with a crime to seek out representation so as to give themselves the best chance for avoiding or reducing possible jail time.

An experienced Tennessee criminal defense attorney knows the substance of the charges levied against you, their consequences, and, if convicted, how to reduce or possibly avoid jail time altogether. An experienced criminal defense attorney can also seek out alternative sentencing in lieu of jail time, which can prevent criminal charges from going on your permanent criminal history.

Continue reading "Introduction to Criminal Sentencing in Tennessee" »

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently had the opportunity to revisit the informer’s privilege. In particular, the court addressed the circumstances under which the identity of a confidential informant must be disclosed to a criminal defendant prior to trial.

What is the informer’s privilege? It is the government’s privilege to not reveal the identity of an informer. The justification for the privilege is twofold: 1) to protect informants from reprisals and 2) to maintain the informant’s confidential status. The privilege does not apply where the informer is also a government witness during the criminal trial.

The informer’s privilege is not absolute and must be waived when the defendant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the informer’s identity is crucial to his or her defense. Examples of mandatory disclosure provided by the Tennessee Supreme Court in the case State v. Ostein included evidence that the informant 1) participated in the crime, 2) witnessed the crime, or 3) had information favorable to the defendant.

Continue reading "Informer's Privilege" »