State of Tennessee v. Brandon Ackerman, 397 S.W.3d 617

Davidson County jury convicted Ackerman on four counts of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of child abuse, and one count of rape of a child, with a total effective sentence of 27.5 years.
The victim, M.A., born August 20, 2002, testified she was the defendant’s daughter and described episodes of abuse; a video recording of her November 2006 forensic interview was introduced at trial.
Ackerman sought to introduce expert Bruce Frumkin to challenge suggestibility and interview techniques; the trial court excluded his testimony.
The State introduced a pretrial audio recording of a telephone call between Ackerman and his ex-wife and an in-person interview with him; Ackerman challenged these statements as involuntary.
The State later sought to admit the victim’s statements to three adults (Miller, Ackerman, Johnson) as substantive or corroborative hearsay; the trial court admitted them, then the State argued for Rule 803(26) applicability.
On appeal, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, finding errors in admitting the video and certain hearsay statements, while noting some evidentiary rulings (like Frumkin and certain suppression rulings) were not reversible errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in excluding Ackerman's expert Frumkin	Ackerman	Ackerman	Not reversible error
Whether the video recording of the victim’s forensic interview could be admitted as substantive evidence under Rule 803(26)	State	Ackerman	Error to admit; remand for new trial
Whether the victim’s statements to Ms. Ackerman, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Johnson were admissible as substantive or impeachment evidence	State	Ackerman	Error to admit as substantive; harmless error not applicable; remand for new trial
Whether the admission of the video and related statements violated Ackerman’s Confrontation Clause rights	State	Ackerman	Confrontation rights not violated for video; memory issues do not negate confrontation
Whether Ackerman’s pretrial statements to Ms. Ackerman and to Detective Robinson were involuntary and should have been suppressed	Ackerman	Ackerman	Ackerman was a state actor; suppression required but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; Robinson statements admissible

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court (2004)) (testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements; confrontation implications)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. Supreme Court (1988)) (memory loss does not render a witness unavailable for confrontation purposes)
Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 (U.S. Supreme Court (1961)) (confrontation protections satisfied when cross-examination is available)
Brown v. State, 29 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. 2000) (factors for evaluating admissibility and witnesses' credibility)
State v. Flood, 219 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. 2007) (factors for evaluating whether exclusion or admission of evidence violated due process)
State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883 (Tenn. 2011) (admissibility standards aligning state and federal confrontation analysis)
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (U.S. Supreme Court (1966)) (voluntariness of statements with private confidants; not per se coercive)
Clariday v. State, 552 S.W.2d 759 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976) (non-coercive informant testimony; Fifth Amendment context)