State of Tennessee v. Glover P. Smith
436 S.W.3d 751
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- In Dec. 2007 Glover P. Smith reported his wife missing; police located her Lincoln Navigator in a Walmart lot the next day between two rental trucks and recovered a bicycle and clothing from Smith’s garage. Video showed an older person riding away on a bicycle at the time the SUV parked.
- Smith called the police dispatcher first, then officers (Edwards, Gage, Taylor) subsequently interviewed him and recorded statements about when his wife left, what she wore, and how much cash she had.
- A superseding indictment charged Smith with two counts of fabricating evidence (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503) and six counts of making a false report (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-502).
- A jury convicted on all counts; trial court later dismissed the fabricating-evidence convictions (finding no investigation “pending” when Smith parked the vehicle). The Court of Criminal Appeals reinstated those convictions, dismissed two false-report counts as multiplicitous, and affirmed the rest.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) the meaning of “pending”/“in progress” in § 39-16-503 and sufficiency of the evidence for the fabricating-evidence convictions, and (2) whether multiple false-report counts were multiplicitous (double jeopardy/unit-of-prosecution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "pending"/"in progress" in § 39-16-503 (fabricating evidence) | Statute criminalizes conduct when an investigation is impending or in progress; "pending" should include "impending." | "Pending" should mean an investigation already underway; Callahan supports requiring an investigation already notified. | "Pending" means "impending" (i.e., about to take place); Callahan overruled to extent inconsistent. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for fabricating-evidence convictions (counts 1–2) | Circumstantial evidence (call to dispatcher; parking SUV at 2:24 p.m.; bicycle leaving; recovered bicycle/clothes) supports that Smith knew an investigation was impending and presented/used/concealed the vehicle to affect an investigation. | Evidence insufficient because police had not yet been notified when the vehicle was left; no proof Smith intended to impair evidence. | Evidence sufficient: jury could infer Smith knew investigation was impending and presented/used (and conceivably concealed) the vehicle to affect the investigation; convictions reinstated and merged. |
| Multiplicity / unit of prosecution for § 39-16-502 false-report counts | Different statements made to different officers on different days can constitute separate units when they are distinct false reports or responses. | Six counts arise from the same core conduct (one false missing-person report) and thus multiple convictions violate double jeopardy. | (1) Subsections (a)(1),(a)(2),(a)(3) are separate offenses under Blockburger. (2) Unit of prosecution: for (a)(1) the initiation of a false report about an incident; for (a)(2) each false statement in response to a legitimate law-enforcement inquiry. Applying that rule, counts 3–4 insufficient and dismissed; of counts 5,7,8 (a)(2) only one unit may be punished — affirm count 5, dismiss counts 7 and 8 as multiplicitous. |
| Sentence review after dismissals | State argued sentence proper; court of appeals affirmed under de novo review. | Smith argued for probation/full alternative sentence given dismissals. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; effective sentence (1 year jail + 6 years probation) affirmed under Bise/Caudle standards; concurrent sentences meant dismissals did not alter total. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence) (establishes whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (double jeopardy same-elements test) (framework for multiple-description analysis)
- State v. Levandowski, 955 S.W.2d 603 (Tenn. 1997) (interpreting earlier version of § 39-16-502 and prompting legislative amendment)
- State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012) (reformed Tennessee double jeopardy/unit-of-prosecution analysis)
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (sentencing review: abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness)
- State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (extended Bise standard to probation/alternative sentences)