State of Tennessee v. Christopher Oberton Curry, Jr., 705 S.W.3d 176

Christopher Oberton Curry, Jr. was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm after a prior felony conviction for robbery in Tennessee.
Under Tennessee law, unlawful firearm possession is a Class E felony, but is enhanced to a Class B felony if the prior conviction is for a “crime of violence.”
At trial, the State introduced Curry's 2017 robbery conviction and the trial judge instructed the jury that robbery is a crime of violence, even though robbery is not specifically listed in the statutory definition of "crime of violence."
Curry received a 10-year sentence based on the Class B felony enhancement.
On appeal, Curry argued the enhancement was improper because his prior robbery did not meet the statutory definition of a "crime of violence."
The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed whether robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the statute and whether the evidence supported the enhancement in this case.

Issue	Curry's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Is the statutory list of "crimes of violence" exhaustive or illustrative?	The list is exhaustive; robbery is not included, so enhancement is improper.	The list is illustrative; robbery can qualify if violent.	List is illustrative; robbery may be included.
Can robbery be a "crime of violence" for firearm enhancement?	No, because it is not specifically listed in the statute.	Yes, robbery by its nature can sometimes be violent.	Robbery can be a crime of violence if the facts show violence.
Who decides whether a robbery is a "crime of violence"—judge or jury?	Jury must decide; issue is an essential element of the offense.	Judge should decide as a matter of law.	Jury must be properly instructed and decide this factual issue.
Was there sufficient evidence that Curry's robbery was a crime of violence?	No; only judgment of conviction was presented, lacking facts to show violence.	Yes; prior charge and weapon forfeiture show it was violent.	No sufficient evidence; conviction reduced to Class E felony.

State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (clarifies standard for sufficiency of the evidence on criminal convictions)
State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010) (jury decides factual issues and credibility in criminal cases)
State v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (jury must determine every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2001) (judge may determine qualifying prior offenses for capital sentencing; distinguished here)
State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2017) (legislature defines criminal statutes and essential elements)