State of Tennessee v. Garry Baker, M2016-01164-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Garry Baker was tried by jury for attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter and two counts of aggravated assault after his stepfather sustained multiple knife wounds during an August 2014 domestic altercation; convictions were merged into a single aggravated assault and sentenced to 8 years, consecutive to an existing sentence.
Key eyewitnesses: the elderly victim (stepsfather) testified Baker cut him after a confrontation; Baker testified he was attacked first, had limited memory after being punched, carried the knife for protection, and asserted self-defense.
Detective and photographic evidence showed wounds to the victim, a red folding knife in Baker’s bedroom identified by the victim, and blood-like stains at the scene; no DNA/fingerprint testing of the knife or stains was completed.
On cross-examination the State impeached Baker with a 2006 aggravated assault conviction and questioned him about an August 2013 domestic incident; defense objected at a jury-out hearing after direct testimony concluded.
The trial court allowed questioning about the prior conviction (finding its probative value outweighed prejudice) but did not make the Rule 609 findings on the record or rule before Baker testified; no jury instruction on prior conviction impeachment was given.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded for new trial, holding the prior-conviction impeachment was improperly admitted and not harmless; the court affirmed the consecutive-sentence decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Baker)	Held
Admissibility of 2006 aggravated assault conviction	Conviction admissible to impeach Baker’s credibility and to rebut his testimony (opened door to character/violence)	Conviction was not triggered by direct testimony, was not a dishonesty crime, and was unfairly prejudicial	Reversed: conviction admission improper under Rule 404(a) and Rule 609; trial court failed to rule per Rule 609 before testimony and did not make required findings; error not harmless
Consecutive sentencing to previously imposed sentence	Consecutive service proper because Baker committed offense while on supervised probation; needed to protect public	Consecutive service excessive given Baker’s physical/medical needs and vulnerability	Affirmed as to sentencing: trial court did not abuse discretion in imposing consecutive service under Tenn. Code § 40-35-115(b)(6)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. 2010) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. 2007) (deference to trial court on admissibility)
State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2006) (abuse of discretion defined)
State v. Ruane, 912 S.W.2d 766 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (victim’s prior violence admissible to show initial aggressor)
State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2008) (harmless error standard for non-constitutional errors)
State v. Roberts, 703 S.W.2d 146 (Tenn. 1986) (prior conviction admission and self-defense context)
State v. Parton, 694 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1985) (error prejudice considerations)
Bunch v. State, 605 S.W.2d 227 (Tenn. 1980) (prior conviction impeachment precedents)
State v. Thompson, 36 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (Rule 609—trial court must analyze probative value vs. unfair prejudice and explain on record)
State v. Waller, 118 S.W.3d 368 (Tenn. 2003) (Rule 609 guidance)
State v. Blanton, 926 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (violent felonies and credibility)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for sentencing; presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (consecutive sentencing discretion and standards)
State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (consecutive sentence principles)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (sentencing considerations and record materials)
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986) (sentencing factors and procedures)
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (sentencing guidance)
Long v. State, 607 S.W.2d 482 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (weak link between assaultive crimes and veracity)