State of Tennessee v. George P. Watkins, III, W2015-02095-CCA-R3-CD

Police executed a search warrant at Watkins’s residence and found 45.32 grams of marijuana, three bags of marijuana, two digital scales, small plastic sandwich bags, assorted ammunition, and a loaded .357 Magnum revolver under the mattress in Watkins’s bedroom.
Utilities, mail, paystub, and photographs at the residence tied the house to Watkins; Watkins later admitted in a written statement that the drugs and gun belonged to him.
Watkins was arrested at work the same day; $800–$900 cash and a cell phone were found on his person.
A jury convicted Watkins of possession of marijuana with intent to sell (merged counts), possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony; sentences produced an effective five-year term.
On appeal, Watkins argued (1) the jury instruction for the firearm offense improperly included the mental states "knowingly" and "recklessly" (lowering the State’s burden), and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the firearm convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Watkins)	Held
Whether the jury instruction for possession of a firearm with intent to go armed was erroneous for including knowingly and recklessly	The instruction tracked pattern language used in other firearms offenses and was permissible	The instruction lowered the State’s burden by allowing conviction on knowingly or recklessly rather than intent to go armed	Reversed firearm convictions for plain error: instruction was erroneous and prejudicial; remand for new trial on Counts 4 and 5
Whether evidence was sufficient to support firearm convictions	Evidence of loaded gun near drugs, scales, packaging, cash, and Watkins’s admission supported inference of intent to go armed during drug offense	Watkins argued he was at work when items were found and therefore could not have intent to go armed at time of commission	Evidence held sufficient to sustain firearm convictions (but convictions vacated due to instructional error)
Whether clerical/judgment form errors require correction	N/A	N/A	Remanded for corrected, separate judgment forms for merged counts (Counts 1 and 2) and to reflect merger and sentencing entries

State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2014) (held mens rea for § 39-17-1324(a) is possession with the "intent to go armed")
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (defendant has right to complete and correct jury charge; review of jury instructions de novo)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (five-factor plain error test for appellate review)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (allocution on burden of persuasion for preserved vs. forfeited errors; cited for plain-error principles)