State of Tennessee v. Elvis Hester, W2016-01822-CCA-R3-CD

On June 25, 2014, Elvis Hester attended visitation at the Shelby County penal farm; officers detected a strong odor of marijuana near where he sat.
Officers asked to inspect items Hester held (chips, candy) and asked him to open his mouth; he refused and appeared to have something in his mouth or throat.
During escort and a subsequent strip-search, officers observed a bulge in Hester’s sock; Hester made a sudden move attempting to put a taped black ball into his mouth.
Officers used chemical spray, forced Hester to the floor, and recovered a black electrical-tape-wrapped ball that TBI testing showed contained 11.84 grams of marijuana.
A jury acquitted Hester of introducing/possessing contraband in a penal institution but convicted him of possession of marijuana; at sentencing the trial court treated the conviction as a Class E felony (third-or-subsequent offense) and imposed six years.
On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction as supported by sufficient evidence but remanded to correct the class of offense and sentence to a Class A misdemeanor (11 months, 29 days) pursuant to a statutory amendment reducing enhanced penalties.

Issue	State's Argument	Hester's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support possession of marijuana conviction	Evidence (odor, refusal to open mouth, observed attempts to swallow, recovery of taped marijuana ball) supports conviction	Officer testimony conflicts and video not produced; witnesses inconsistent about whether contraband was in mouth	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational jury could convict; credibility/resolution of conflicts for jury
Whether verdicts were inconsistent/mutually exclusive (acquittal on penal-facility counts vs conviction for simple possession)	Inconsistent verdicts do not require relief; jury credibility and deliberation protected	Inconsistent acquittal logically excludes possession conviction	Rejected: Tennessee follows rule that inconsistent or seemingly mutually exclusive verdicts are not a basis for reversal if evidence supports the conviction
Whether amended § 39-17-418(e) reducing enhancement applied at sentencing	Amendment (effective July 1, 2016) narrowed felony enhancement to heroin cases; State conceded amendment produced a lesser penalty	Trial court declined retroactive application; Hester argued amendment applied and reduced offense to misdemeanor	Reversed sentencing: amendment applied at sentencing because it provided a lesser penalty; remand to enter conviction as Class A misdemeanor with 11 months, 29 days

Tuggle v. State, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (standard that jury conviction replaces presumption of innocence on appeal)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2012) (deference to jury on witness credibility)
State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000) (appellate courts do not reassess credibility)
State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2015) (inconsistent or mutually exclusive jury verdicts normally do not entitle defendant to relief)