State of Tennessee v. Mario D. Frederick, M2016-00737-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Mario D. Frederick was indicted on multiple counts for soliciting sexual exploitation of minors and indecent exposure based on four parking-lot incidents in October 2013; several victims were juveniles or had young children present.
Incidents occurred within a two-week span at retail parking lots within ~2 miles; victims described a maroon/dark-red Yukon/Suburban with chrome rims; several victims saw a male expose and masturbate near their vehicles.
Police traced the vehicle by a license plate, linked it to Frederick, conducted photographic lineups, and arrested him; some victims made positive identifications at lineup and trial.
Frederick was convicted on multiple counts (Class C and E felonies and misdemeanors) and received an effective five-year sentence; he appealed asserting errors in joinder/severance, indictment mens rea, and sufficiency of the evidence.
The trial court denied the motion to sever as untimely and denied motion for arrest of judgment; the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed joinder/Rule 14 issues de novo where the trial court failed to state the basis for denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Frederick)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying motion to sever joined counts	Joinder was proper under permissive joinder because offenses formed a common scheme/signature and evidence of each would be admissible for identity	Motion to sever timely; separate incidents/dates/victims required severance	Affirmed: permissive joinder proper — acts showed distinctive modus operandi; evidence of each admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove identity
Whether indictment was fatally defective for listing wrong mens rea ("knowingly" vs. statutory "intentionally")	Any mens rea error was harmless because the indictment referenced the correct statute and jury was instructed on the correct mens rea	Indictment failed to allege an essential element; counts do not charge an offense	Affirmed: no relief — indictment sufficiently notified defendant by citing statute; mental state ascertainable and jury instructed correctly
Sufficiency of evidence for counts alleging intentional conduct to have minor view sexual activity (counts 2 & 3)	Evidence showed defendant targeted vehicles with young children present, exited vehicle, masturbated while staring at child or parent — supports purposeful intent	Argued lack of proof that defendant acted for purpose of having the minor view (e.g., child inside car; sightline issues)	Affirmed: rational juror could find intent to have minor view the conduct given proximity, staring, and circumstances
Sufficiency of evidence of identity	Multiple victims positively identified defendant at trial and some in photographic lineup; vehicle identification linked to defendant	Argued misidentifications and inability of some victims to pick him out in lineup undermines identity	Affirmed: victim testimony and lineup identifications sufficient; identity resolved by jury credibility determinations

Key Cases Cited

State v. Garrett, 331 S.W.3d 392 (Tenn. 2011) (appellate court must perform joinder/severance analysis when trial court fails to make required findings)
State v. Johnson, 342 S.W.3d 468 (Tenn. 2011) (analysis of "same criminal episode" and temporal/spatial proximity)
State v. Carter, 714 S.W.2d 241 (Tenn. 1986) (modus operandi/signature crime test for common scheme identity inference)
Bunch v. State, 605 S.W.2d 227 (Tenn. 1980) (other offenses admissible if part of common plan)
State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W.3d 294 (Tenn. 2000) (indictment sufficiency standards: notice, basis for judgment, double jeopardy protection)
State v. Strickland, 885 S.W.2d 85 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (victim identification testimony can alone support conviction)