State of Tennessee v. Jonathan C. Buckner, M2016-01162-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Jonathan C. Buckner was tried by jury in Houston County for theft of an ATV taken after a purported test drive; jury convicted him of theft of property $1,000–$10,000 (Class D). Sentence: 12 years as a Range III persistent offender, consecutive to another sentence.
Key facts: seller (Dylan Hutchinson) posted ATV for sale; Buckner test‑drove ATV, left the property without paying, and fled; pursuit ensued, shots were fired by the victim’s father and the ATV was ultimately disabled by a truck. Video of pursuit and eyewitness testimony were admitted.
Buckner testified he intended to buy the ATV for a friend, left cash in a toboggan, feared returning because of past experiences with police, and planned to abandon the ATV. He had numerous prior felony convictions and an extensive criminal history.
At trial Buckner raised multiple challenges: courtroom witness/venire procedure, admission of hearsay statements, denial of two mistrials, several prosecutorial remarks in opening/closing/rebuttal, and multiple sentencing issues (notice for enhancement, use of plea offer, length and consecutive service).
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting each claim either on waiver/plain‑error grounds or as lacking prejudice, but found some prosecutorial comments improper while concluding the overwhelming proof prevented reversal.

Issues

Issue	State’s Argument	Buckner’s Argument	Held
1) Witnesses in gallery during jury selection	No prejudice; transcript shows court ordered witnesses to leave; issue waived for lack of objection	Presence of witnesses among venire denied fair trial; bench conference showed violation of sequestration	Waived: no contemporaneous defense objection and record incomplete; no relief granted
2) Admission of out‑of‑court statements (hearsay) by Tommy Hutchinson and Chief Moore	Statements either admissible to show effect on listener or cumulative to Dylan Hutchinson’s testimony	Testimony relaying Dylan’s statements was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial	Tommy’s testimony admission was erroneous but harmless (Dylan already testified). Chief Moore’s statements were admissible to show effect on investigation; no relief
3) Two mistrial motions (juror allegedly saw defendant in holding room; witness referenced excluded info)	Trial court investigated; juror and officer denied seeing defendant; court immediately admonished jury about excluded remark	Juror made eye contact with defendant; excluded alias evidence prejudiced trial requiring mistrial	Denied: court’s inquiry credited juror/officer; excluded‑evidence comment was brief, court admonished jury; harmless error
4) Prosecutorial misconduct in opening/closing/rebuttal	Opening was permissible summary; closing/rebuttal objections not timely; even if improper, evidence overwhelming so no prejudice	Prosecutor misstated facts in opening; urged conviction based on prior convictions (propensity) and asked jurors to do county a “favor”; prejudicial misconduct	Opening: partly improper argument but unobjected/no plain error. Closing/rebuttal: comments were improper (propensity and "do a favor") but harmless given overwhelming proof
5) Sentencing: notice for Range III, reliance on plea offer, sentence length and consecutive service	State substantially complied with statutory notice; plea offer reference not relied upon; sentence within range and supported by enhancement factors; consecutive service justified (on probation at time)	April notice failed to comply with §40‑35‑202; amended notice filed post‑trial too late; plea offer should be inadmissible; court misapplied enhancements and erred in consecutive order	Notice: substantial compliance; no prejudice. Plea offer: court did not rely on it. Sentence: within Range III limits and supported by findings; consecutive service justified. No relief

Key Cases Cited

Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015) (standard of review for hearsay factual findings and legal questions)
State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1990) (substantial‑compliance test for notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment)
State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (standards for prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)
State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371 (Tenn. 2012) (limits on opening statements—must be supported by admissible evidence)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentencing)
State v. Richardson, 697 S.W.2d 594 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (presumption that juries follow curative/admonitory instructions)