State of Tennessee v. Latickia Tashay Burgins, 464 S.W.3d 298

Background

In March 2013 Knoxy County charged Latickia Burgins with misdemeanor simple possession; she posted a $5,000 appearance bond and was released.
While on pretrial release she was later indicted (April 2014) on a 19‑count presentment including attempted first‑degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, attempted carjacking, and aggravated assault; a capias was served.
The State moved to revoke Burgins’s 2013 bond under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40‑11‑141(b), alleging she committed offenses while on release; the trial court revoked bail without an evidentiary hearing.
Burgins challenged the statute as unconstitutional under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and sought a hearing; the Court of Criminal Appeals held § 40‑11‑141(b) unconstitutional to the extent it permits holding a defendant without bail pending trial and remanded to consider imposing additional conditions.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide the statute’s constitutionality and to set required procedures for bail‑revocation proceedings.
The Court held: (1) Tennessee guarantees a right to pretrial bail but it is not absolute and may be forfeited by criminal conduct while on release; (2) due process requires an evidentiary hearing before revocation, and it set procedures and a preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard for such hearings; remanded for a hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 40‑11‑141(b) is constitutional as permitting pretrial bail revocation and detention pending trial	State: Bail is not absolute; a defendant can forfeit bail by committing crimes while released and the statute legitimately authorizes revocation	Burgins: Article I, § 15 guarantees an absolute right to bail in noncapital cases that cannot be revoked for subsequent misconduct	Statute constitutional; right to bail exists but is not absolute and may be forfeited by conduct while released
Whether due process requires a hearing before revoking pretrial bail	State implied less formal process may suffice	Burgins: Revocation without an evidentiary hearing violates due process	Due process requires written notice, disclosure of evidence, an evidentiary hearing with opportunity to present/cross‑examine, and a neutral decisionmaker
What burden/standard of proof applies in a bail‑revocation hearing	State: (advocated) various standards; argues forfeiture may be shown by probable cause or other standards	Burgins: Higher protection required because liberty interest is significant	Court: State must prove grounds for revocation by a preponderance of the evidence
What remedies or alternatives must a court consider before revoking bail	State: Court may revoke when grounds met	Burgins: Court should consider less drastic alternatives and statutory bail factors before holding without bail	Court: After proof, judge may revoke or modify bail (added conditions or increase). Court must consider § 40‑11‑116 and § 40‑11‑118 factors and impose revocation only if no conditions or higher bail would protect appearance/public safety

Key Cases Cited

Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277 (discussing historic basis for pretrial liberty)
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (pretrial release preserves presumption of innocence)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (Eighth Amendment and regulation of pretrial release)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due‑process safeguards for revocation proceedings)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (probation revocation due‑process standards)
Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education, 470 U.S. 532 (scope of procedural due process protections)
State v. Wallace, 193 Tenn. 182, 245 S.W.2d 192 (Tenn. holding that constitutional right to bail may be forfeited with evidentiary proof)
State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2006) (forfeiture of confrontation rights by misconduct)
State v. Wade, 863 S.W.2d 406 (Tenn. 1993) (admissibility of hearsay when reliable in Tennessee proceedings)