State of Tennessee v. Larry Jereller Alston, Kris Theotis Young, and Joshua Edward Webb
465 S.W.3d 555
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- Three defendants accosted the victim at gunpoint, took her purse outside her home, forced her inside, pushed her onto a couch, and ransacked the residence; police arrived and arrested them.
- Indictments charged aggravated robbery (taking the purse), aggravated burglary (entry and theft), especially aggravated kidnapping (weapon-aided confinement), and firearm offenses dependent on a predicate dangerous felony.
- Jury convicted on all counts; the trial court set aside the especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary convictions (and dismissed the firearm counts) as violating due process when stacked with aggravated robbery.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and reinstated convictions; this Court remanded for consideration in light of State v. Cecil (which applied the White instruction requirement to pending appeals).
- This Court ultimately addressed (1) whether a White jury instruction is required when kidnapping is charged with aggravated burglary, and (2) whether failing to give White instructions on kidnapping with aggravated robbery was harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a White jury instruction is required when kidnapping is charged with aggravated burglary | No; aggravated burglary is a property offense and does not inherently involve confinement, so White is not warranted | Yes; White applies broadly and should include kidnapping charged with aggravated burglary | A White instruction is not required when kidnapping is accompanied only by aggravated burglary |
| Whether failure to give White instruction on kidnapping charged with aggravated robbery was error | N/A (State conceded instruction warranted for robbery pairing) | Error required reversal because jury was not instructed on whether confinement was beyond that necessary to commit robbery | Failure to give White instruction as to kidnapping with aggravated robbery was error under Cecil/White but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the aggravated robbery was completed before the confinement (relevant to harmlessness) | The robbery (taking purse) was completed before forcing the victim into the house, so kidnapping was separate | The defendants argued the robbery was part of a continuous course of conduct, so kidnapping might be incidental | The Court held the robbery (as charged) was complete when the purse was taken; subsequent confinement was distinct, so the omission was harmless |
| Whether firearm convictions should stand after trial court’s dismissal | State appealed; Court of Criminal Appeals reinstated but later found indictments defective for failing to identify predicate felony | Defendants argued dismissal was appropriate | Firearm convictions remained dismissed because indictments failed to specify the predicate dangerous felony (unchallenged here) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (requires jury instruction to determine whether removal/confinement was more than incidental to an accompanying felony)
- State v. Cecil, 409 S.W.3d 599 (Tenn. 2013) (held absence of White instruction is constitutional error and applied White to cases already on appeal)
- State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991) (originally held kidnapping may be incidental to robbery/rape/assault and required due process analysis; later overruled by White)
- State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997) (refined "essentially incidental" test to consider whether restraint exceeded that necessary to consummate the accompanying felony)
- State v. Cozart, 54 S.W.3d 242 (Tenn. 2001) (explained appellate courts previously treated the incidental-kidnapping inquiry as a legal question reviewed de novo)