State of Tennessee v. Gary Hamilton, 498 S.W.3d 7

Defendant Gary Hamilton, a 49-year-old in-school suspension assistant, was indicted for assault after a hallway altercation with a 16-year-old student at Fulton High School; school staff and security observed the student on the floor and Officer Sanderson reported Hamilton punched the student while restrained.
Hamilton resigned, submitted a remorseful letter and a pretrial diversion application describing the incident as partly defensive; his application omitted the alleged punch after the student was restrained.
The Knox County District Attorney denied diversion after weighing factors: circumstances of the offense (defendant as aggressor), inconsistencies in defendant’s statements, defendant’s amenability to correction, the need for deterrence (crimes in schools), and public interest.
Hamilton sought certiorari review in trial court; the trial court limited its review to amenability and circumstances and upheld the DA’s denial (bench ruling without additional evidence).
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, finding inadequate evidentiary support for the denial and directing diversion; the State appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The Tennessee Supreme Court held the DA properly considered all required factors and the denial was supported by substantial evidence; it vacated the CCA judgment, reinstated the trial court’s denial, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DA abused discretion in denying pretrial diversion	DA: denial was proper — he considered all statutory factors and substantial evidence supports denial (aggressor, inconsistent statements, deterrence, public interest)	Hamilton: DA abused discretion by failing to properly weigh/consider factors and record lacks substantial evidence to deny diversion	Held: No abuse — DA considered all factors and record contains substantial evidence to support denial
Whether the trial court applied correct standard in certiorari review	State: trial court must review whether DA considered each relevant factor and whether findings are supported by substantial evidence; trial court erred by narrowing review but reached correct outcome	Hamilton: trial court’s limited review was insufficient to protect defendant’s rights	Held: Trial court’s written reasoning was inadequate (error) but outcome upheld because DA’s denial was supported by substantial evidence
Whether appellate court may reweigh evidence when reviewing DA denial	CCA: reexamined evidence and substituted its view, concluding lack of substantial evidence	State: appellate courts must determine only whether denial was supported by substantial evidence, not reweigh facts	Held: CCA erred by reweighing evidence; appellate role is to check for substantial evidence, not substitute judgment

State v. Richardson, 357 S.W.3d 620 (Tenn. 2012) (standards for prosecutorial denial of diversion)
State v. Bell, 69 S.W.3d 171 (Tenn. 2002) (trial court review must examine evidence considered by prosecutor)
State v. Pinkham, 955 S.W.2d 956 (Tenn. 1997) (weighing of diversion factors)
State v. Curry, 988 S.W.2d 153 (Tenn. 1999) (presumption that DA correctly denied diversion; review limits)
State v. Yancey, 69 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2002) (trial court must examine each relevant diversion factor and substantial-evidence support)
State v. Hammersley, 650 S.W.2d 352 (Tenn. 1983) (enumeration of pretrial diversion factors)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (deterrence factor requirements when relied on exclusively)
State v. Washington, 866 S.W.2d 950 (Tenn. 1993) (when circumstances must "necessarily outweigh" other factors)
State v. Markham, 755 S.W.2d 850 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) (relative weight of factors in diversion decisions)
State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285 (Tenn. 1978) (discretion may favor either outcome when evidence supports both)
State v. McKim, 215 S.W.3d 781 (Tenn. 2007) (certiorari review standards in diversion context)