State of Tennessee v. Lavar Jernigan
M2016-00507-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Defendant Lavar Jernigan, a band/color guard mentor, was indicted on multiple counts; a Rutherford County jury convicted him of six counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and the trial court sentenced him to an effective 30 years at 100% service.
- Earlier in Lawrence County Jernigan pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means (two-year probationary sentence) based on some of the same communications and evidence.
- Investigators recovered deleted photographs and over 6,000 text messages from the phones of the victim (a minor) and the Defendant; a notebook compiling those messages was used at trial and read into evidence by an analyst.
- Pretrial, Jernigan moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds and sought a bill of particulars (dates/times/locations of transmissions); the trial court denied both motions.
- At trial the victim and multiple detectives testified about the sexualized communications, the exchange of explicit images, and forensic phone analysis; the defense raised issues about disclosure and venue but did not contemporaneously object to the notebook exhibit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jernigan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of notebook containing text messages | Notebook was admissible and properly used; defense failed to timely object | Notebook/exhibit was not disclosed before trial; admission was prejudicial | Appeal precluded by inadequate appellate record and contemporaneous-objection waiver; no relief granted |
| Double jeopardy (dual prosecutions) | Offenses prosecuted in two counties involve different elements and are separately punishable | Rutherford prosecution re‑used same acts/evidence as Lawrence County plea; violates double jeopardy | Convictions do not violate double jeopardy because offenses have different elements (displaying obscene material v. promoting/producing images) and statute contemplates multiple convictions |
| Bill of particulars (dates/times/locations) | Location/timing of possession/deletion immaterial; State provided sufficient discovery to prepare defense and prove venue at trial | Lack of specific dates/times/locations prevented defense from showing images were not received in Rutherford County | Denial affirmed: requested details were immaterial to elements; venue could be established at trial and bill is not for discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012) (adopted same‑elements/Blockburger analysis for double jeopardy)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same‑elements test for double jeopardy)
- State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996) (prior Tennessee approach to double jeopardy discussed and superseded)