Enhancement Factor: Position of Trust
When a person is convicted of a crime and proceeds to the sentencing phase, the judge will begin to determine the sentence by looking at the applicable statutory sentencing range as a starting point. The judge will then proceed by applying enhancement or mitigating factors to increase or decrease the sentence as warranted. Tennessee law enumerates several enhancement factors that can be used to increase a defendant’s sentence if the factor is not an essential element of the offense. A simple way to look at enhancement factors is that they tend to be anything that makes the commission of the crime more offensive to the victims or to the public at large.
Tenn. Code Ann. Section 40-35-114 contains a list of enhancement factors in Tennessee, one of which is particularly relevant to this discussion. Tenn. Code. Ann. Section 40-35-114(14) states that an enhancement is warranted where: [t]he defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a professional license in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or the fulfillment of the offense.” This enhancement factor will typically be used to increase the sentences of people, such as certain government officials and doctors, who abuse positions in which the public places a higher degree of trust. However, the factor can apply to any person who occupies a position in which the public or a private individual places its trust. Illustrative of this point is a recent case decided by the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals, where a judge at the trial court level applied this enhancement factor to a mail carrier.
Although not a profession often thought of when the term “position of trust” is discussed, a mail carrier is responsible for delivering sensitive information and important packages to citizens in the same condition in which it was sent. One such mail carrier, Mr. Bradley, was suspected of abusing his position after a police informant tipped off investigators that he was stealing drugs through the mail. The police then proceeded to set up Mr. Bradley by getting a police informant to arrange to sell narcotics to Mr. Bradley in person, and arrested him for his drug offense at the arranged meeting. Mr. Bradley pled guilty to possession of a controlled Schedule III substance with intent to sell, and received a four-year sentence, which he contended was excessive.
Upon review, the Court of Criminal Appeals took issue with the only enhancement factor applied by the trial court: abuse of a position of trust. While the Court abstained from deciding whether or not a mail carrier actually occupied a position of trust, they ruled that the trial court had committed reversible error in applying the factor, because there was no evidence that the defendant used his position to accomplish the offense. Fortunately for Mr. Bradley, the state did not prosecute him for any of the alleged incidents of stealing drugs through the mail, nor did they try to set him up by sending drugs through the mail; rather, their only evidence of Mr. Bradley participating in such activity was audio and video evidence of Mr. Bradley’s face-to-face meeting with the police informant at which he was arrested. Since there was no prosecution related to any offenses committed by Mr. Bradley involving the use of his position as a mail carrier, the enhancement factor could not apply.
This case illustrates the distinction between merely occupying a position of trust while committing an offense and actually using the position to facilitate the commission of the offense. The purpose of the enhancement factors is not to punish people based on their standing in society, but rather to punish those who take advantage of victims who rely on them because of such positions. It is an important distinction that made a substantial difference in Mr. Bradley’s case, resulting in a reduction of his sentence from two to four years.
Sources: State v. Bradley, 34 TAM 38-34, 7/17/09, Nashville, Smith, 4 pages; T.C.A. section 40-35-114
Bookmark: 
