State of Tennessee v. Elton Keith McCommon, W2015-01228-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On Oct. 13, 2012, Elton Keith McCommon led police on a seven-mile, high-speed chase through Haywood County; dash‑cam videos showed speeds up to 117 mph, weaving through traffic, and close calls with officers and other motorists.
Officers activated lights and sirens and pursued; no other vehicles were seen on the videos as targets of the defendant.
When stopped, McCommon was naked from the waist down; officers found about $1,500, a purple vibrator with scattered batteries, and urine in the truck. McCommon allegedly told officers he had been "binging cocaine."
McCommon testified he had been robbed and stripped at a nearby Taco Bell and was pursuing his assailants; police received no robbery report and officers disputed his account.
A jury convicted McCommon of felony reckless endangerment (deadly weapon = vehicle), felony evading arrest, and driving on a revoked/suspended license. The trial court sentenced him as a career offender to an effective 12‑year term. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McCommon)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for reckless endangerment	Videos and officer testimony show defendant consciously disregarded substantial risk to officers and motorists during the high‑speed chase	Defendant claimed he was chasing robbers after being stripped and shot; that explanation negates required culpable mental state	Conviction affirmed: evidence sufficient; jury could reject defendant's account and infer requisite mental state
Sufficiency of evidence for evading arrest	Defendant intentionally fled after officers signaled; flight created risk of death or injury	Defendant’s robbery explanation negated intent to evade; he sought police attention to catch robbers	Conviction affirmed: videos and testimony showed intentional flight creating risk
Admission of evidence found in truck (vibrator, batteries, urine)	Evidence was relevant to State’s theory that defendant was impaired, indifferent to danger, and the nakedness and interior contents explained his conduct	Evidence was unfairly prejudicial and appealed to prurient interest, inflaming the jury	Admission was within trial court’s discretion; evidence relevant to provenance of nakedness and defendant’s state; no abuse of discretion
Career‑offender sentencing	State relied on certified priors and stipulation at sentencing to establish six or more prior felonies	Defendant argued trial court erred in classifying him a career offender	Affirmed: record (presentence report and stipulation) supported career offender finding; issue effectively waived on appeal but merits established

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (appellate review defers to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1992) (sufficiency review framework)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for within‑range sentencing)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for trial court sentencing)
Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (jury and trial judge are primary fact‑finders)