State of Tennessee v. Justin Ellis, 453 S.W.3d 889

Justin Ellis was tried by jury for multiple offenses including aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and use of a firearm; the jury convicted on several counts but acquitted on kidnapping charges.
The trial judge who presided at trial left the bench before sentencing; a designated judge held sentencing and later transferred the case; a successor judge (who had not presided at trial) conducted the motion-for-new-trial hearing.
Ellis argued the successor judge could not act as the “thirteenth juror” because witness credibility was the overriding issue; the successor judge disagreed and declined to grant a new trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding witness credibility was overriding and requiring a new trial; this Court granted permission to appeal to resolve (1) the analytical framework for successor judges acting as thirteenth juror and (2) the standard of appellate review.
The Tennessee Supreme Court held there is a rebuttable presumption that a successor judge can act as the thirteenth juror, that de novo appellate review applies, and that on the record here the successor judge properly acted as thirteenth juror; it reversed the CCA and reinstated convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a successor judge can act as the thirteenth juror and what analysis governs that decision	State: successor judges presumptively may act; they should assess the record to determine whether demeanor was critical	Ellis: where credibility is the overriding issue a successor judge who did not see witnesses cannot act as thirteenth juror	Held: Rebuttable presumption that successor can act; successor must review the full record and decline only if witness demeanor (not captured in record) is critical
Standard of appellate review of successor judge’s determination	State: appellate review should be de novo	Ellis: CCA majority applied de novo; (defense implicitly favored greater deference)	Held: De novo review applies to successor judge’s legal conclusion and its review of the trial record
Application: whether the successor judge erred in this case by acting as thirteenth juror	State: record contained corroboration and no material contradictions on elements; successor could assess credibility from transcript	Ellis: credibility of victims was central and required firsthand observation	Held: Successor judge properly acted as thirteenth juror; record did not rebut the presumption and did not show demeanor was decisive

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (reversal for insufficiency is equivalent to an acquittal; distinguishes sufficiency from weight)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (discusses difference between reversing for insufficiency and granting new trial for weight of evidence)
State v. Moats, 906 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. 1995) (trial court’s approval as thirteenth juror is prerequisite to valid judgment)
State v. Biggs, 218 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006) (successor judge must grant new trial when witness credibility is the primary, overriding issue)
State v. Carter, 896 S.W.2d 119 (Tenn. 1995) (discusses restoration and application of thirteenth juror rule under Rule 33)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (only trial judge can observe demeanor and inflection that weigh heavily in credibility)
Kornberg v. Kornberg, 542 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 1996) (applies de novo review to successor judge’s authority to perform judicial duties)