State of Tennessee v. Jerome Maurice Teats, 468 S.W.3d 495

In May 2009 two men forced entry into a Shoney’s restaurant, threatened employees with guns, herded four employees into a back storage area, and took money from the manager. Police later arrested the defendant and recovered money and a firearm.
The defendant was indicted for aggravated robbery (against the manager) and four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping (against the four other employees). A jury convicted on all counts.
The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred by not giving the jury a White instruction (from State v. White) addressing when removal/confinement is more than incidental to an accompanying felony. The trial court had denied the requested instruction; White issued while the case was in the pipeline.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding White did not require an instruction where kidnapping and the accompanying felony involve different victims. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide whether White requires that instruction when victims differ.
The Supreme Court majority held that a White jury instruction is not required where the kidnapping and robbery involve different victims, reasoning the due-process concern White addresses arises only when the same victim is subjected to both offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a White jury instruction is required when kidnapping and an accompanying robbery involve different victims	State: not required because a kidnapping of one person cannot be "essentially incidental" to a robbery of a different person	Teats: White requires the instruction whenever kidnapping is charged with an offense that inherently involves confinement, regardless of whether victims differ	The Court held no. White instruction not required when kidnapping and robbery target different victims
Whether denying the White instruction violated due process	State: no due-process risk where victims differ; no danger of convicting for one crime twice	Teats: due-process concerns persist because confinement of multiple victims can be "essentially incidental" to robbery of another victim	Held for State: due-process concerns that motivated White are absent when victims differ

State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (held jury must decide whether removal/confinement is incidental to an accompanying felony and provided the instructional language)
State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991) (adopted due-process “essentially incidental” analysis for kidnapping with accompanying offenses)
State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997) (refined Anthony into a two-part test for when movement/confinement exceeds that necessary to consummate a felony)
State v. Cecil, 409 S.W.3d 599 (Tenn. 2013) (held omission of a warranted White instruction is instructional error subject to constitutional harmless-error review)
State v. Alston, 465 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2015) (concluded White instruction unnecessary where kidnapping charged with aggravated burglary because burglary does not inherently involve victim confinement)