State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey W. Tittle
M2016-02006-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Victim was grabbed, had a knife held to her throat, and was dragged ~20–30 feet down a dark driveway toward a scrap yard; she escaped and flagged down a patrol car shortly afterward.
- Patrol-car video recorded the victim immediately after the attack; it captured her distraught statements identifying the assailant and describing the events.
- Defendant was tried and convicted of aggravated assault and the lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated kidnapping; sentenced to consecutive 10-year terms.
- At pretrial the court suppressed a separate statement but admitted the patrol-car video under the excited-utterance hearsay exception; portions were muted to remove references to Defendant’s prior sexual offenses.
- Defense challenged (1) admissibility of the video (hearsay/testimonial), (2) jury viewing the video multiple times during deliberations, (3) merger of convictions under double jeopardy/due process.
- Trial court upheld admission; on appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, remanding only to correct clerical errors in the judgment form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of patrol-car video (hearsay/excited utterance) | State: victim’s roadside, distraught statements were spontaneous excited utterances admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(2). | Tittle: statements lacked spontaneity/stress; some statements later were calm; video therefore hearsay and should be excluded; also argued statements were testimonial. | Video admissible: victim was under stress immediately after a startling event; statements related to the event and fit excited-utterance exception; testimonial issue moot because declarant testified and was cross-examined. |
| Jury viewed video multiple times during deliberations | State: Rule 30.1 permits jury access to exhibits; defense agreed at hearing the multiple viewings occurred. | Tittle: multiple viewings violated Tenn. R. Crim. P. 30.1 and was improper. | Waived: no contemporaneous objection to making video an exhibit or jury access; issue waived under Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a); Rule 30.1 permits viewing. |
| Double jeopardy / merger of aggravated assault into attempted aggravated kidnapping | State: statutory elements differ; Legislature did not intend merger; each offense requires proof of an element the other does not. | Tittle: aggravated assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping; convictions should merge. | Denied: Blockburger/Watkins analysis shows each offense contains an element the other lacks (attempt requires intent/removal; aggravated assault requires reasonable fear); convictions may stand. |
| Due process sufficiency under State v. White (whether removal/confinement exceeded that necessary for assault) | State: jury was properly instructed per White; dragging ~20–30 feet with knife constitutes movement beyond that necessary to accomplish the assault. | Tittle: acquittal on completed kidnapping means jury found no removal; therefore attempted kidnapping conviction lacks sufficient evidence under White. | Affirmed: reviewing sufficiency in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could find the dragging was a substantial step producing removal beyond that necessary to commit the assault; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (requires jury instruction that removal/confinement must exceed that necessary to commit accompanying felony)
- Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015) (standard for reviewing hearsay/excited-utterance rulings)
- State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. 2010) (elements of excited-utterance exception explained)
- Watkins v. State, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012) (double jeopardy analysis and use of Blockburger framework)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for whether offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)