STATE of Tennessee v. Courtney KNOWLES
2015 Tenn. LEXIS 591
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- Defendant Courtney Knowles was indicted in 2007 for two counts of rape of a child, with severed trials for the two counts.
- Trial concerned the first count involving T.M.’s oldest daughter; the date, place, and circumstances of alleged penetration were central to the charge.
- State election of the offense proceeded as to April 2005 at T.M.’s residence after returning from the hospital, but the prosecutor later electing cunnilingus instead of the prior understanding of penetration method.
- Trial court and jury instruction repeated the incorrect election, identifying cunnilingus as the offense element for the April 2005 incident.
- Knowles did not object to the election error or raise the issue in a motion for new trial; record on appeal lacked complete proceedings and closing arguments.
- Court of Criminal Appeals held the error harmless; Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to evaluate plain error under the five-factor test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether election error constitutes plain error entitling relief | Knowles | Knowles | Election error not plain error; no relief |
| Whether the State’s election was specific enough to preserve unanimity | State | Knowles | Election sufficient to safeguard unanimity despite mistake |
| Whether the record deficiencies prevent plain error relief | Knowles | Knowles | Incomplete record supports denial of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2000) (Election identifies act; unanimous verdict requirement)
- State v. Kendrick, 38 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2001) (Plain error relief for multiple offenses in single incident)
- State v. Walton, 958 S.W.2d 724 (Tenn. 1997) (Plain error for failure to elect; jeopardy and unanimity concerns)
- Burlison v. State, 501 S.W.2d 801 (Tenn. 1973) (Unanimity right and plain error framework)
- State v. Johnson, 53 S.W.3d 628 (Tenn. 2001) (Unanimity and multiple acts; election necessity clarified)
- State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1999) (Jury unanimity with single offense; multiple acts analysis)
- State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69 (Tenn. 2001) (Penetration standards; scope of vaginal intrusion)
- State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997) (Jury instruction interpretation; common-sense approach)
- Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1990) (Jury instructions interpretation; deliberation > strict parsing)