Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

There are certain vocations that are only suited for those who like to live dangerously; astronaut, matador, assassin, and Chicago Cubs fan to name a few. Well, now that “the ice cream wars are heating up” in Washington state according to Marysville police Commander Robb Lamoureux, you can add ice cream vendor to that list. The latest incident to plague the mean streets of Everett, Washington came two Sundays ago when one ice-cream vendor threatened the life of another vendor with a steak knife, letting her know that if she brought her truck on his turf again he would kill her. The man cited an unwritten code that exists among ice cream vendors about where they sell their product as the cause of his frustration. The source article cited below was sure to note that the man was arrested, charged with second-degree assault, and did not seem to be in Good Humor about the situation. (insert rimshot)

In Tennessee, the offending vendor would likely be charged with aggravated assault because he intentionally caused the victim to fear death or bodily injury by using or displaying a deadly weapon. This offense constitutes a Class C felony in Tennessee and is punishable by three to fifteen years of incarceration.

Although this blog article is mostly humorous, things can become serious pretty quickly when a defendant faces a charge as serious as the one described. When facing such a charge, a defendant will need the assistance of a capable criminal defense attorney who can work to help the defendant prove that such an assault never occurred or possibly arrange alternative forms of sentencing for the defendant should he or she could be convicted of the charge, possibly enabling the defendant to avoid incarceration.

Source: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100615/NEWS01/706159908/0/FRONTPAGE

It seems schools these days are more dangerous than ever before, with stories of school-related violence constantly finding a place on the news and in the headlines. Such violence comes in many different forms, whether it be by a student or a student’s parent against a teacher, by a teacher against a student or another teacher, or often even by a student against another student. Many states have laws that specifically target school-related violence, and Tennessee is one of them. One specific law Tennessee has enacted with this goal in mind can be found in T.C.A. section 39-13-114 which concerns communicating a threat concerning a school employee.

The above-referenced statute applies to basically any institution that could be considered a “school,” including colleges and universities. It essentially has four elements:

• “ (b) A person commits the offense of communicating a threat concerning a school employee if:
  
  1. The person communicates to another a threat to cause the death of or serious bodily injury to a school employee and the threat is directly related to the employee's scope of employment;
  
  
  2. The threat involves the use of a firearm or other deadly weapon;
  
  
  3. The person to whom the threat is made reasonably believes that the person making the threat intends to carry out the threat; and
  
  
  4. The person making the threat intentionally engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step in the commission of the threatened act and the threatened act and the substantial step when taken together:
  
  
  • (A) Are corroborative of the person's intent to commit the threatened act; and
  
  
  • (B) Occur close enough in time to evidence an intent and ability to commit the threatened act”

Continue reading "Communicating a Threat Concerning a School Employee" »

If you have driven a motor vehicle for very long, you have undoubtedly come across someone like Christopher Tilas of Ocean Township, New Jersey. Mr. Tilas, like many drivers, is apparently far too busy to drive behind your car at the speed of your choosing and will attempt to pass you anytime, anywhere. If unable to complete the pass in a quick and efficient manner, the driver will become frustrated and will usually begin to tailgate you and express their displeasure in a less-than-appropriate manner. Unfortunately for Mr. Tilas, the manner he chose in which to express his displeasure with the slow driver in front of him was not only inappropriate but was also illegal.

Mr. Tilas allegedly pulled up beside the lady in front of him, who he had been unable to pass, and threatened her with a knife. He then pulled up beside her again but retreated when he noticed she was on the phone talking to someone. Unfortunately for him, that someone was the police. After the phone call was made, an officer later spotted Tilas and pulled him over. After a knife was found in his car, Mr. Tilas was arrested. He has been charged with aggravated assault and two weapons offenses.

Continue reading "Impatient Driver Charged with Aggravated Assault" »

Fifty-three year-old Elsie Egan of Marion County, Florida is particular about her menu. So particular, in fact, that she used a raw steak to beat some sense into her long-time boyfriend Peter on Tuesday for disagreeing about what type of bread the couple would have at dinner. Elsie wanted Peter to eat sliced bread, while Peter wanted rolls. He should have just settled for the sliced bread. Apparently the disagreement became heated and Elsie began hitting Peter on top of the head with an uncooked medium-sized steak. Egan denies wielding the deadly steak but does admit to slapping Peter several times so that he could learn the error of his ways. She is facing felony domestic abuse charges.

For purposes of classifying this conduct in Tennessee, it would be necessary to determine if a steak was considered a deadly weapon. Domestic abuse is punished equivalent to assault in Tennessee and assault with a deadly weapon is classified as aggravated assault. Red meat, while linked to heart disease and various other maladies, may not be the type of deadly weapon contemplated by the Tennessee statute, but it is debatable. The definition of deadly weapon in Tennessee includes “[a]nything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury,” which technically means that if you used a steak to beat someone to death it might be considered a deadly weapon. That seems to be the way it was interpreted by the Florida authorities which led to the felony domestic abuse charges against Ms. Egan.

Continue reading "Woman Assaults Boyfriend With Uncooked Steak" »

Three University of Tennessee football players have been charged in connection with an attempted robbery that allegedly took place on Cumberland Avenue early Thursday morning. Janzen Jackson, Nu’Keese Richardson, and Mike Edwards have been identified as three of the suspects who were arrested in connection with the incident. The victims were apparently sitting in a vehicle at a Pilot gas station on Cumberland Avenue during the wee hours of Thursday morning when two males in hooded sweatshirts approached the car and demanded that the victims hand over everything they have. One of the males was also in possession of what appeared to be a handgun. The third male then came over and told the other two suspects that they needed to leave. A search of the surrounding area eventually uncovered the vehicle used by the suspects in the commission of the offense. A search of the vehicle’s contents uncovered two black hooded sweatshirts, marijuana paraphernalia, and a black pellet gun. The suspects were taken back to the site of the attempted robbery and identified by the victims. They have been charged with attempted aggravated robbery.

Aggravated robbery is a Class B felony in Tennessee, punished by up to thirty years in prison. A robbery is considered “aggravated” when the victim suffers serious bodily injury, the robbery is accomplished with a deadly weapon, or the robbery is accomplished with some item used or fashioned to lead the victim to believe it is a deadly weapon. In this case, it is clearly the latter condition that upgrades the robbery charge to aggravated robbery. The pellet gun was used in such a manner that the victim(s) believed it was a real gun and thus a deadly weapon. It is worth noting that this criterion can apply even where no type of gun is used at all. In fact, merely poking a finger through one’s shirt would qualify as aggravated robbery if it led the victim to believe the robber had a gun.

Continue reading "Three Vols Charged with Attempted Aggravated Robbery" »

Nothing says “I am mad at you” like dragging someone’s defenseless dog behind your truck like an amateur water-skier. At least that was apparently the mindset of a Knoxville man who was arrested and charged with aggravated cruelty to animals after onlookers spotted him doing just that last Tuesday afternoon. One witness said that as many as twenty or thirty people were yelling at the man, who is ironically nicknamed “Dog,” to stop after noticing that he was dragging a small dog behind his truck on a street off of Middlebrook Pike, but the man refused to stop. When Mr. Dog finally came to a stop, he reportedly yelled at the onlookers, tossed the hapless animal into his truck, and drove off. The dog was later found abandoned by a business on Sutherland Avenue and is currently recuperating at the University of Tennessee’s College of Veterinary Medicine. There is no word on whether or not the accused gets to keep his nickname.

T.C.A. section 39-14-212 provides that someone commits aggravated cruelty to an animal when he or she, with aggravated cruelty and no justifiable purpose, intentionally kills or causes serious physical injury to a companion (non-livestock) animal. Aggravated cruelty is defined as that “which is done or carried out in a depraved and sadistic manner and which tortures or maims an animal, including the failure to provide food and water to a companion animal resulting in a substantial risk of death or death.” Intentionally dragging an animal behind your car seems to fit this definition pretty clearly. Violation of this statute is a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine not to exceed $3,000.00.

Continue reading "Knoxville Man Charged with Aggravated Animal Cruelty" »

The issue of children being tried as adults is one of the most controversial aspects of criminal law. There is an obvious tension between punishing the offender based on the severity of offense and protecting an offender whose youth and immaturity may dictate that he or she did not fully understand the consequences of his or her actions or possess the requisite intent. In order to try to balance this tension, Tennessee law allows a juvenile to be transferred from juvenile court to be tried as an adult, but only in limited circumstances. This is part of a comprehensive endeavor by Tennessee to define at what age a citizen could, and should, be considered capable of possessing the mental ability and requisite intent to commit a crime.

Any person who is under seven years of age in Tennessee is conclusively presumed to not be accountable for their actions. This applies regardless of the offense and is not an absolute rule. Persons between the ages of seven and fourteen are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime, but that presumption can be overcome if the circumstances show that the offender was clearly able to distinguish between good and evil at the time of the offense. A person above the age of fourteen is considered capable of distinguishing between right and wrong unless the circumstances indicate otherwise. Between the ages of seven and eighteen, any offender who is charged with a juvenile crime in East Tennessee will be handled by the juvenile court system unless they are transferred to a criminal court and tried as an adult.

T.C.A. section 37-1-134 sets out the requirements for an offender to be transferred from juvenile court to a criminal court to be tried as an adult. First, the offender must have been sixteen years-old or older at the time of the offense unless the offender is charged with “first degree murder, second degree murder, rape, aggravated rape, rape of a child, aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping or especially aggravated kidnapping or an attempt to commit any such offenses,” in which case the offender can be tried as an adult at any age (excluding children seven years-old and younger, see above). Second, a hearing on the transfer must be conducted in conformity with applicable law. Third, reasonable notice must be given to the child and the child’s legal guardian prior to the hearing. Fourth, the court must find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child committed the delinquent act(s) as alleged, the child is not committable to an institution for the developmentally disabled or mentally ill, and the interests of the community require that the child be put under legal restraint or discipline. The statute includes a list of factors the court can consider in making this determination.

Continue reading "Children Tried as Adults in Tennessee" »

In modern society, debates rage about which methods of discipline are appropriate for parents to use with their children. Most of the debate is focused on the ethics of spanking versus non-physical means of punishment and proponents of both sides differ as to what is acceptable and what amounts to going too far. In an effort to define with greater clarity what does indeed “go too far,” an Iraqi immigrant father living in Arizona recently ran his daughter over with the family car because he felt she was becoming too Americanized. The dad was apparently upset that the daughter was not living in comport with traditional Iraqi values and thus ran her over with the belief that she had caused the family too much dishonor to be allowed to live. He was later arrested at the Atlanta airport, but there is no word yet on what charges he will face. As of the writing of this article, the daughter remains hospitalized.

In Tennessee, the father would be looking at a litany of charges, most notably some sort of attempted murder charge (assuming the victim does not die from the injuries) depending on the circumstances surrounding the incident and the father’s mental state. Criminal attempt is an “inchoate offense,” which basically means that the person charged is accused of acting with the intent to commit the offense or attempting to commit the offense but did not actually follow through with the commission of the offense in such a manner that the offense attempted can be charged. For example, the father in this case allegedly attempted to kill his daughter by running over her with his vehicle and took steps to accomplish that goal. If the father’s plan would have been successful, he would have been guilty of murder. However, if the daughter does not die as a result of the attack, one of the necessary elements of a murder charge, a “killing,” is absent under the circumstances. Thus, the father can only be charged with attempted murder.

Continue reading "Dad Runs Daughter Over with Car as Punishment: Criminal Attempt" »

On May 19, the Tennessee House passed an amendment to Senate Bill 539, removing language creating two distinct offenses for assault or aggravated assault on a police officer. Instead, the amendment, if passed, would simply double fines. Thus, the fine for assault in Tennessee on a police officer would be $5,000, and aggravated assault would carry a fine of $15,000.

Proponents of the bill say that the dangerous duties performed by officers warrant building a stronger deterrent into the law against attacks upon them. Opponents, like Senator Frank Nicely of Strawberry Plains, say that assault simply comes with the territory. “If you’re going to milk cows, you’re going to get kicked every now and then,” he stated. (Source: Knoxville News Sentinel, May 20, 2009).

What is assault? Under present law, a person commits assault who:
(1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
(2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or
(3) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative.

Aggravated assault generally involves the above unlawful acts plus evidence that the assault caused serious bodily injury; or a deadly weapon was used during the commission of the assault. The new law would simply raise the fines if these offenses were committed against a police officer.

If you have been charged with assault or aggravated assault against a police officer in Knoxville, Pigeon Forge or surrounding areas, you will want an attorney with the skills and experience to build an effective defense. Call the skilled Knoxville criminal assault attorneys at Baker Associates today for a complete case evaluation.

Under present law, first degree murder in Tennessee is:
• A premeditated and intentional killing of another;
• A killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any first degree murder, act of terrorism, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, kidnapping, aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, rape of a child, aggravated rape of a child or aircraft piracy; or
• A killing of another committed as the result of the unlawful throwing, placing or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

Senate Bill 1093 expands first degree murder as homicide crimes in Tennessee by including within the actions that constitute first degree murder the killing of another while committing domestic abuse if there was a past pattern of abuse upon the victim or another family or household member and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

Under Tennessee domestic abuse law, domestic abuse victims include:
• Adults or minors who are current or former spouses;
• Adults or minors who live together or who have lived together;
• Adults or minors who are dating or who have dated or who have or had a sexual relationship,
• Adults or minors related by blood or adoption;
• Adults or minors who are related or were formerly related by marriage.

To constitute extreme indifference to human life, the defendant’s conduct must be so lacking in concern for the lives of others that it warrants the same criminal liability as if the crime was done for the purpose of taking life.

If charged with first degree murder, you are facing the most severe punishments available under Tennessee law. Sentences can include life in prison or even the death penalty. This is why you will want a skilled attorney who has had considerable success in defending people who have been accused of this most serious crime. Call the experienced Knoxville assault attorneys today at Baker Associates for a free and comprehensive case evaluation.

In 1980, Gary Bradford Cone was convicted of brutally beating an elderly couple to death in their Memphis home. At trial, Cone claimed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by his service in Vietnam, and that this post-traumatic stress left him incapable of having the requisite mental state to commit first-degree murder in Tennessee. He also claimed that he was a habitual drug user. Prosecutors aggressively challenged Cone’s claims, often mocking him while doing so, and a jury convicted him of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to death.

So what is the problem? It turns out that at the time of the trial, prosecutors were in possession of evidence that could have substantiated Cone’s claims of mental instability. This evidence was withheld from Cone’s attorney, the judge, and the jury. It is this simple act of withholding that has resulted in the United States Supreme Court ordering Cone be granted a new hearing so that this “new” evidence may be considered. Under criminal evidence procedure, prosecutors are required to supply potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Failing to do so is a denial of due process and can result in the denial of a fair trial – a Constitutional guarantee.

Since Cone’s trial 1980, lower courts have consistently refused to hear the new evidence, and the United States Supreme Court finally decided to hear his case in December 2008. The Supreme Court did not overturn cone’s conviction, as the justices agreed that the evidence bore no weight on whether Cone actually committed the murders; however, the evidence is vitally important to the issue of Cone’s intent to commit the murders, and could result in his conviction being reduced to second-degree murder. The effect could be a reduction in his sentence from death to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court demanded that Cone be given a new hearing to allow this evidence to finally be considered, nearly 30 years after his initial trial.

Cone’s nearly 30-year battle has resulted in an important victory for defendants’ rights. As evidenced by Cone’s trial, prosecutors carry extraordinary powers and, if left unchecked, can abuse those powers to the detriment of the rights of criminal defendants. Nonetheless, aggressiveness and persistence of do pay off in the criminal justice system, even if it takes 30 years.

If you have been charged with a crime in Tennessee, the skilled Pigeon Forge criminal defense attorneys at Baker Associates can help. Call 866-853-2888 for a case evaluation.

Under Tennessee law, TCA § 39-13-112, persons who are initially arrested for a violation of TCA § 39-13-102 (aggravated assault), and whose victims came into actual contact with their blood or other bodily fluids, must undergo testing for HIV immediately upon request of the victim of the assault.

The HIV test shall be performed by a licensed medical laboratory, with the expenses of the test going to the arrestee. Once the results of the test are available, they are to immediately be reported to the victim of the assault.

Interestingly, under this section, “victim of the assault” includes only persons who are working for the government within the performance of their official duty. Police officers, firefighters, correctional officers, EMTs, paramedics, and other civil service employees are covered, but the public at large is not covered. Thus, a private citizen who is the victim of an aggravated assault in Tennessee may not request an HIV test of the arrestee.

The results of these HIV tests do not become a part of the public record. Instead, they are available only to a limited class of persons. Those who are entitled to access to the results are: (1) the victim of the assault, (2) the parent of guardian of a minor or incapacitated victim, (3) the attending physician of the person tested and of the victim, (4) the department of health, (5) the department of corrections, (6) the person tested, and (7) the district attorney general prosecuting the case.

If the HIV test indicates that the arrestee is in fact infect with HIV, the arrestee will be responsible for the victim’s medical bills, laboratory bills, and other expenses related to the victim’s exposure to HIV. This is, of course, conditional upon a finding that the victim’s exposure to HIV was from the arrestee, and not from another third party.

The skilled Pigeon Forge assault defense lawyers at Baker Associates are available to answer any questions you may have regarding HIV tests and assault. Our attorneys have the knowledge and experience to effectively represent you and provide you with information you need to help you through this difficult time. Call 866-853-2888 for a free consultation.

Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-527, sexual battery by an authority figure is considered a violent sexual offense, and is laid out as a separate offense from traditional sexual battery. In order to have a charge for sexual battery by an authority figure, an unlawful sexual contact must occurs, and the proper criteria must be satisfied for both the defendant and victim.

With regards to the victim, one of two criteria must be satisfied in order to have a charge of sexual battery by an authority figure. Either the victim must, at the time of the offense, have been between the ages of 13 and 18, or the victim must, at the time of the offense, have been either mentally defective, incapacitated, or physically helpless. If the victim was deemed mentally or physically incapacitated, their age will be irrelevant.

Once the status of the victim has been determined, it must then be established that the defendant was an authority figure. Under Tennessee, law, there are two ways that the defendant could be considered an authority figure. First, if the defendant was, at the time of the offense, in a position of trust or had supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim, then the defendant may be an authority figure.

Continue reading "Tennessee Sexual Battery by an Authority Figure" »

Sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery both involve unlawful sexual contact between a defendant and victim. “Unlawful sexual contact” is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-501 as the intentional touching of intimate parts, or of the clothing covering the immediate area of a person's intimate parts, for sexual gratification.

Sexual battery (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-505) involves unlawful sexual contact that occurs in one of four situations. First, sexual battery occurs when force or coercion is used to accomplish the contact, with coercion being the threat of kidnapping, extortion, or violence. Second, sexual battery occurs when contact was made without the consent of the victim. Third, sexual battery occurs when the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was mentally incapacitated or physically helpless. Fourth, sexual battery occurs if the contact is accomplished by fraud.

Sexual battery is a Class E felony, punishable by 1 to 6 years in prison and a fine of up to $3,000. In addition, persons convicted of sexual battery must register as sexual offenders.

Continue reading "Tennessee Sexual Battery and Aggravated Sexual Battery" »