State of Tennessee v. Khamphonh Xayyasith, M2020-00379-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Khamphonh Xayyasith was tried for conduct in October 2018: an October 7 incident where he assaulted the victim (the mother of his children) and an October 22 incident involving threats and coercion; charged with three counts of aggravated assault (alternative theories: serious bodily injury; strangulation/attempted strangulation; use/display of a deadly weapon) and one count of domestic assault.
Victim testified that on October 7 defendant repeatedly struck her with a coaxial cable cord and squeezed her neck with his hands (describing pressure as an 8/10), producing lacerations, bruises, infections, scars (including a neck scar), extreme pain, and short-term functional impairment requiring hospital treatment.
On October 22 defendant allegedly blocked and confronted the victim in her car, forced her into his car, threatened to burn her in a trunk, and later returned her home; 9-1-1 calls and Instagram posts tied defendant to the events; a recorded 2019 jail call by defendant was played at trial.
A Davidson County jury convicted defendant of three aggravated assaults (merged) and one domestic assault; trial court imposed concurrent sentences: 15 years (aggravated assault) and 11 months, 29 days (domestic assault); defendant appealed.
On appeal defendant argued (1) insufficient evidence for aggravated-assault theories, (2) erroneous admission of part of a jail-call recording, and (3) excessive/incorrect sentencing enhancements; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Xayyasith's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — serious bodily injury (aggravated assault)	Victim’s medical injuries, scars, extreme pain, inability to work/care for children support serious bodily injury	Evidence did not establish statutory serious bodily injury; should be reduced to misdemeanor domestic assault	Conviction upheld: scars and protracted extreme pain satisfied serious bodily injury definition
Sufficiency — strangulation/attempted strangulation	Victim’s testimony about neck compression, dizziness, blurred vision, inability to speak, and neck markings support strangulation	Victim did not lose consciousness; evidence insufficient to prove strangulation	Conviction upheld: physical symptoms and markings satisfied statutory strangulation/attempted strangulation standard
Sufficiency — deadly weapon (use/display)	Though cord not a weapon per se, the manner of repeated use produced serious injury and thus rendered it a deadly weapon	Coaxial cable is not a deadly weapon; insufficient proof of intent to use it to cause death/serious injury	Conviction upheld: manner of use made the cord capable of causing serious bodily injury; qualifies as deadly weapon for these counts
Admissibility — jail telephone recording	Recording provided contextual background and showed defendant’s knowledge, animosity, and lack of remorse; probative value outweighed prejudice	Profane and sexual remarks were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401–403	Admission not an abuse of discretion: trial court reasonably found relevance and that prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value
Sentencing — application of enhancement/mitigating factors and length	Trial court properly weighed defendant’s criminal history (adult and juvenile), possession/employment of deadly weapon, and other facts; 15-year within-range sentence reasonable	Court misapplied enhancement factors and should have applied the catchall mitigating factor for traumatic childhood; 15 years excessive	Sentence affirmed: within-range with proper application of enhancements (history of criminal behavior, juvenile adjudications, possession/employment of weapon); court permissibly declined mitigation

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review — Jackson reasonable-doubt test)
State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (appellate sufficiency review principles in Tennessee)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (jury resolves credibility and weight of evidence)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial and direct evidence held to same sufficiency standard)
State v. Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 195 (Tenn. 2000) (non-firearm instrument may be a deadly weapon based on manner of use)
State v. Eaves, 959 S.W.2d 601 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (manner-of-use can render an otherwise innocuous object a deadly weapon)
State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2000) (admitting evidence as contextual background to avoid conceptual/chronological void)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard and presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (sentencing considerations and principles)