State of Tennessee v. John Freitas
W2015-02492-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Defendant John Freitas (ex-boyfriend, father of victim’s child) was indicted for aggravated assault by strangulation and domestic assault after an incident where he grabbed, covered the victim’s mouth, and strangled her; victim had visible neck/throat injuries and photographed abrasions.
- Jury convicted Freitas of the lesser-included offense of simple assault (count one) and domestic assault (count two); trial court later sentenced him to concurrent eleven-month, twenty-nine-day terms ordered to run consecutively.
- At sentencing the State introduced evidence of prior violent incidents between the parties and prior aggravated-assault convictions from Louisiana; victim testified about a history of abuse and protective orders.
- Freitas argued on appeal that (1) the evidence was insufficient, (2) the dual convictions for assault and domestic assault violate double jeopardy, and (3) consecutive sentencing was an abuse of discretion.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed convictions on the merits of sufficiency but held that imposing separate punishments for assault and domestic assault violated double jeopardy; it ordered the simple assault conviction to merge into the domestic assault conviction for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for assault and domestic assault | State: victim’s testimony and photos show bodily injury and fear; supports both convictions | Freitas: injuries were minor and inconsistent with victim’s account; insufficient proof | Evidence sufficient; jury credited victim and photos; convictions upheld |
| Whether assault and domestic assault convictions violate double jeopardy (multiple punishment) | State: assault verdict encompassed alternative theories; at least one assault theory lacked domestic-victim element so convictions can stand separately | Freitas: domestic assault includes all elements of assault (assault is lesser-included), so punishments duplicate and violate double jeopardy | Double jeopardy violated for multiple punishments; simple assault merges into domestic assault for sentencing |
| Trial court’s reliance on State v. Smith to permit separate convictions | State: Smith allows separate convictions for different statutory subsections; trial court followed Smith | Freitas: Smith is distinguishable because domestic assault necessarily includes assault elements | Court rejects Smith’s application here; Blockburger analysis controls and mandates merger when one offense is lesser-included |
| Consecutive sentencing as a dangerous offender | State: trial court found defendant dangerous based on strangulation, prior violent history, and previous convictions; consecutive sentences necessary | Freitas: single incident, minor injuries, consecutive sentence excessive | Merger of assault into domestic assault renders consecutive-sentencing issue pretermitted; court nonetheless finds trial court did not abuse discretion if reviewed further |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (elements test for double jeopardy/multiple punishments)
- State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. law adopting Blockburger framework for multiple-description claims)
- State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751 (addressing separate punishments for distinct statutory subsections)