State of Tennessee v. Antonio Terrell Pewitte, M2015-02103-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Antonio Pewitte lived with his girlfriend and her two children; on Dec. 1, 2013 he grabbed six‑year‑old N.C.’s wrists in the bathroom, turned the faucet to hot, and held her hands under hot water causing immediate pain.
N.C. later developed blisters on both hands; mother wanted to take her to the hospital but Defendant refused, attempted inappropriate home treatment (rubbing alcohol, popping blisters), and did not inform mother earlier despite multiple calls.
N.C. was hospitalized six days, required pain management, aqua therapy and months of exercises; injuries were partial‑thickness burns, left scarring and reduced range of motion.
Medical testimony established the tap produced water around 130°F (with spikes near 140°F) and that such temperatures can produce serious burns in seconds; immediate medical care is important to prevent loss of function.
Defendant was indicted on alternative theories of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect; jury acquitted on abuse counts but convicted of one count of aggravated child neglect (Class A felony); trial court sentenced him to 20 years.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court should have required the State to elect among alternative offense theories	No election required because the conduct was a single continuing course (burn + failure to seek care)	Election required because jury could have convicted on different acts (burning v. failure to seek care), implicating unanimity	Election not required: neglect can be a continuing course; both acts formed one offense of neglect
Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated child neglect (resulting in serious bodily injury)	Evidence supports that the entire course (burn + neglect) caused serious bodily injury	Acquittal on abuse suggests burns were caused by the act (abuse), not by the neglect; thus neglect did not cause serious injury	Evidence sufficient: whole continuing course caused injuries and pain; inconsistent verdicts do not mandate reversal
Admissibility of multiple photographs of victim’s injuries	Photos were relevant to prove serious bodily injury, disfigurement, and impairment; not overly gruesome or cumulative	Some photos were cumulative and later/healing photos were not relevant	Photographs admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting 13 images
Admission of victim’s statements to medical staff under hearsay exception (Tenn. R. Evid. 803(4))	Statements were made for medical diagnosis/treatment and were reasonably pertinent; CARE team evaluation was medical	Statements were obtained for investigative/prosecutorial purposes and thus not covered by the exception	Statements admissible under 803(4); nurse practitioner’s role and questioning were for medical evaluation, not solely investigation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1999) (election-of-offenses and unanimity principles)
State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. 1993) (prevents "patchwork" jury verdicts; election requirement explained)
State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2000) (child neglect may be a single continuing offense)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (discussing child abuse and neglect as separate offenses)
State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1978) (standards for admitting graphic photographs)
State v. McLeod, 937 S.W.2d 867 (Tenn. 1996) (Rule 803(4) child‑statement admissibility and required evidentiary hearing)