654 S.W.3d 917
Tenn.2022Background
- Lynn Frank Bristol was indicted on two counts involving his minor stepdaughter and convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual battery; trial counsel reviewed and accepted the jury charge with no objection.
- At trial, the judge delivered an oral jury charge; a written charge was provided but the version transmitted in the original appellate record omitted multiple consecutive pages due to a clerk’s copying error.
- Bristol appealed on other grounds; the Court of Criminal Appeals sua sponte ordered supplementation with the oral charge transcript and then reversed for plain error, concluding the written and oral charges diverged and omitted key definitions.
- The State petitioned for rehearing, producing the full written jury instructions from the trial-court file showing the omitted pages; the trial court later confirmed the original appellate record’s version was incorrect and the supplemented version was the one given to the jury.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court held the Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion by deciding an unpreserved and unpresented issue without giving parties notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and it found no plain error on the corrected record; Bristol’s convictions were reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bristol's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellate court may sua sponte consider an unpreserved and unpresented jury-instruction discrepancy | Court may exercise discretionary review (Rules 13(b), 36) in limited circumstances to prevent injustice | Issue was waived; should not be considered absent preservation | Appellate sua sponte review is discretionary but limited; Court of Criminal Appeals abused discretion here by deciding the issue without notice/opportunity to be heard |
| Whether parties must receive notice and opportunity to address an unpresented issue | Yes; Rule 13(b)/36 discretion requires fair notice and chance to respond | Agreed notice necessary; Bristol relied on certification of record | Court must give specific notice of the issue and adequate time to brief or argue it; petition for rehearing is not an adequate substitute |
| Whether the discrepancy in written vs. oral instructions constituted plain error | The Court of Criminal Appeals initially held the discrepancy was plain error affecting substantial rights | Bristol contended no error; oral and written charges were essentially the same | On the corrected record (supplemental written charge), there were no material discrepancies; plain-error relief not available |
| Proper remedy when an appellate court improperly decides an unpresented issue | Remand for further consideration after notice, or deny relief if record forecloses plain error | Reinstate convictions if no plain error; oppose reversal based on unpresented issue | The Supreme Court reversed the CCA’s reversal, declined remand (plain error not shown), and reinstated convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCaleb, 582 S.W.3d 179 (Tenn. 2019) (standards for appellate abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Sineneng‑Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (U.S. 2020) (party presentation principle limits courts’ role)
- State v. Gorman, 628 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. 1982) (Rule 30(c) requires written jury instructions)
- State v. Harbison, 539 S.W.3d 149 (Tenn. 2018) (appellate notice requirement when addressing unpreserved issues)
- State v. Minor, 546 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. 2018) (plain‑error review framework and limits)
- Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (courts are arbiters of issues presented by parties)