State of Tennessee v. Joseph Richard Fredrickson, M2015-01206-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Joseph Fredrickson sold a sandwich bag of a plant substance to an undercover agent and a confidential informant during a controlled buy; audio of the transaction was played to the jury.
Officers found one marked bill on the defendant and the remainder of the buy money at the residence of the supplier the defendant identified. The sold substance weighed 109.02 grams.
TBI forensic analyst performed microscopic inspection (found cystolithic hairs) and a two-part color test (both parts positive/purple) and concluded the substance was marijuana; she declined to run GC‑MS/THC quantification because she had no doubt from those tests.
Defendant testified he believed the substance was industrial hemp purchased from his neighbor and argued at trial that the State failed to prove it was not hemp.
Jury convicted defendant of sale and delivery of marijuana (merged) and conspiracy; trial court imposed a four‑year Range II sentence (felony) and concurrent misdemeanor sentence; defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fredrickson)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that substance was marijuana	Witnesses, marked money, weight, TBI tests, and defendant’s admissions support conviction	TBI testing insufficiently precise to exclude lawful industrial hemp; circumstantial evidence fails to exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State's favor, reasonable jury could find substance was marijuana; convictions upheld
Request for independent testing	No preserved motion in record; defendant filed pro se while represented by counsel; issue waived	Trial court refused independent testing; defendant lacked opportunity to test THC level	No relief: issue not preserved and plain‑error review unwarranted; TBI testimony made independent testing unnecessary
Sentencing — maximum within‑range term	Trial court properly considered enhancement factors and Sentencing Act	Amount of marijuana was nominal; maximum sentence excessive	Affirmed: within‑range term justified by prior convictions and probation revocations; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes constitutional standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Elkins, 102 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2003) (appellate view of evidence in sufficiency review)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (plain error framework and preservation)
State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence)
Bland v. State, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (credibility and weight for trier of fact)
State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1992) (effect of guilty verdict on presumption)
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (burden on appellant after conviction)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard)
State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2012) (circumstantial evidence need not exclude every hypothesis)
State v. Gaddis, 530 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn. 1975) (right to independent testing of controlled substances)
State v. Gilbert, 751 S.W.2d 454 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) (inspection and testing principles)
State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993) (appellant's duty to include record to support issues)
State v. Muse, 637 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982) (trial court need not consider pro se motions filed while defendant represented)
State v. Page, 184 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. 2006) (plain‑error high threshold)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard for appellate review of within‑range sentencing)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (trial court's discretion on enhancement/mitigating factors)
State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 2004) (appellate review of sentencing issues)
State v. Martin, 940 S.W.2d 567 (Tenn. 1997) (preservation of sentencing issues)