State of Tennessee v. Christian Devon McDuffie, M2017-00103-CCA-R3-CD

Two‑month‑old infant presented June 21, 2013 with multiple rib fractures and a left humerus fracture; x‑rays and follow‑up skeletal survey showed nine fractures at different healing stages.
Pediatricians testified fractures were non‑accidental, caused by blunt force or squeezing mechanisms, and inconsistent with birth trauma, genetic bone disease, or normal handling.
Defendant (father) made multiple admissions to Army CID that he had forcefully grabbed, squeezed, and handled the infant on several occasions (including pulling from a car seat, squeezing on a sofa, snatching from a bassinet and squeezing the torso until his fingertips touched).
Defense presented character witnesses who described Defendant as peaceful and truthful; mother testified she did not witness abuse and disputed some of Defendant’s statements.
Defendant was convicted by jury of three counts of aggravated child abuse (Class A felonies) and sentenced to concurrent 15‑year terms; he appealed arguing insufficient evidence of intent to injure and lack of jury unanimity on which act supported convictions.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support aggravated child abuse convictions	Evidence (medical findings + Defendant's admissions) shows Defendant knowingly treated child abusively causing serious bodily injury	Defendant lacked intent to injure; fractures not shown to be intentionally inflicted	Conviction affirmed; child abuse is a nature‑of‑conduct offense and State need only prove Defendant knowingly engaged in abusive conduct that resulted in serious injury
Whether jury reached unanimous verdict as to single act per count	State elected specific acts for each count at trial and jury was instructed to consider only those acts	Defendant argued ambiguity/unanimity concern because multiple incidents presented	Election and jury instructions were sufficient to prevent a patchwork verdict; unanimity requirement satisfied

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (appellate sufficiency standard and reviewing in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (credibility and weight of evidence are jury questions)
State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121 (criminal offenses may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (same standard applies to circumstantial evidence convictions)
State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265 (circumstantial evidence standard of review)
State v. Toliver, 117 S.W.3d 216 (child abuse is a nature‑of‑conduct offense; intent to injure not required)
State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289 (election of offenses and jury unanimity principles)
State v. Walton, 958 S.W.2d 724 (election requirement to avoid patchwork verdicts)
State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134 (jury unanimity and election of offenses)
State v. Brown, 762 S.W.2d 135 (election matter ensures jury unanimity)