State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews, W2015-02500-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Shortly after midnight on Feb. 17, 2013, Deputy Hollowell found Matthews and a co-defendant lying in a ditch along Proctor City Road near Northwest Correctional Center; two large duffel bags lay 1–2 feet from them.
The duffel bags contained 13 packages of plant material later tested as ~390 grams (about 14 ounces) of marijuana, 23 cell phones (with batteries/chargers), and 44 one‑pound bags of tobacco.
The ditch leads toward prison areas (greenhouse and firing range) known as contraband drop sites; the area is a recognized smuggling “hotspot.”
Matthews had been released from Northwest Correctional Center approximately two weeks (15 days) before the arrest.
A jury convicted Matthews of: (1) possession of >1/2 oz of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver; (2) attempt to introduce marijuana into a penal institution; and (3) attempt to introduce cell phones into a penal institution.
The trial court sentenced concurrent terms totaling 12 years. Matthews appealed arguing insufficiency of the evidence, improper admission of testimony about his recent incarceration, exclusion of his arrest statements, and defects in the indictments. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Matthews' Argument	Held
Sufficiency: possession with intent to sell/deliver marijuana	Evidence of large quantity, proximity to duffel bags, known drop site, and valuable prison market support inference of intent	No proof Matthews handled bags or exercised dominion; mere presence insufficient	Conviction affirmed: constructive possession and intent can be inferred from totality of circumstances
Sufficiency: attempt to introduce contraband into penal facility	Lying near contraband at hotspot, proximity to prison, timing, and Matthews’ recent release are substantial step and show intent	No acts in furtherance; no proof he possessed bags or tried to bring items into prison	Conviction affirmed: possession of materials near scene with no lawful purpose can show substantial step toward attempt
Admission of testimony about recent incarceration (Rule 404(b))	Testimony that Matthews was released ~15 days earlier is relevant to intent and not admitted as propensity evidence; limited and redacted	Testimony was an impermissible other‑acts/prior‑bad‑act inference and unfairly prejudicial	Admission of limited testimony upheld: trial court substantially complied with Rule 404(b) and balanced probative value against prejudice
Indictment sufficiency (Counts 1–3)	Indictments adequately charged possession-with-intent and attempts to introduce contraband with date/location — provided fair notice and protected against double jeopardy	Count 1 improperly charged both sale and delivery; Counts 2–3 vague and failed to reference attempt statute	Indictments upheld: Count 1 charges single offense (possession with intent to sell or deliver); Counts 2–3 provide constitutionally sufficient notice and jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1992) (sufficiency review framework)
State v. Cooper, 736 S.W.2d 125 (possession with intent and constructive possession principles)
State v. Reeves, 916 S.W.2d 909 (possession of materials near scene can be substantial step for attempt)
State v. Davis, 354 S.W.3d 718 (elements and standards for criminal attempt)
State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378 (Rule 404(b) caution and exclusion policy)
State v. Jones, 450 S.W.3d 866 (Rule 404(b) procedural requirements)
State v. Smith, 492 S.W.3d 224 (indictment notice sufficiency principles)