State of Tennessee v. Jerry Dixon
M2016-01517-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Jerry Dixon and Ricky Troutt were former business partners with acrimonious litigation; Dixon and an associate (Eli Cornell) arranged a practical joke on Troutt at Longhorn Steakhouse.
- An altercation occurred in the restaurant foyer on Feb. 21, 2012; Troutt suffered four major slash wounds (face, neck, arm) and required life‑saving surgery.
- Witnesses gave conflicting accounts whether Troutt or Dixon struck first; some witnesses observed Dixon with a knife and Troutt on top of Dixon holding him down while bleeding.
- Dixon was charged with attempted second‑degree murder; a jury acquitted him of the greater offenses but convicted him of misdemeanor reckless endangerment.
- Dixon appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence (self‑defense and that only the victim was endangered) and (2) trial court erred by excluding a prior recorded statement of hostess Paige Brown as substantive evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dixon's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for reckless endangerment | Evidence (wounds, testimony that Dixon used a knife) supports a finding Dixon recklessly placed another in imminent danger; jury may reject self‑defense or find force excessive | Jury’s acquittal on greater offenses reflects acceptance of self‑defense; evidence insufficient for reckless mens rea or to show anyone but victim endangered | Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, rational jury could convict; intentional/knowing mental state satisfies reckless mens rea; self‑defense was rebutted or force exceeded privilege |
| Whether conviction inconsistent with acquittals on greater counts | N/A | Acquittals on attempted murder/voluntary manslaughter demonstrate acceptance of defense and preclude reckless conviction | Rejected: inconsistent verdicts permitted; proper inquiry is sufficiency of evidence for the convicted offense |
| Admissibility of Paige Brown’s recorded police statement (hearsay/R.803(26)) | Trial court properly excluded extrinsic evidence because Brown unequivocally admitted making prior statements on cross; transcript of preliminary hearing (admitted) sufficed | Recorded statement was prior inconsistent and should be admitted substantively under Rule 803(26); cancellation rule should apply | Affirmed: extrinsic prior inconsistent statement inadmissible when witness admits making it; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Application of cancellation rule to Brown’s inconsistent statements | Brown’s trial testimony was corroborated (victim’s wife), so cancellation rule inapplicable | Brown’s statements were diametrically opposed and should cancel each other, requiring exclusion | Rejected: cancellation rule applies only when neither version is corroborated; here other evidence corroborated trial testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (appellate review affords prosecution strongest legitimate view of evidence)
- State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (credibility and weight of evidence are jury prerogative)
- State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268 (higher culpable mental states satisfy lesser mens rea requirements)
- State v. Martin, 964 S.W.2d 564 (extrinsic prior inconsistent statement inadmissible when witness unequivocally admits making it)