State of Tennessee v. Michael Smith, 492 S.W.3d 224

Michael Smith was tried by jury on aggravated assault (violating a protective order), evading arrest, and resisting detention based on events around July 20–21, 2010; jury convicted on aggravated assault and evading arrest.
Victim Kimberly Chrestman described multiple incidents: one in Mississippi (July 20) and two in Shelby County (Watkins and Somerset residences, potentially July 20–21); police testimony corroborated an extended pursuit and apprehension near Somerset.
The indictment charged a single aggravated-assault count (July 21, 2010) for "threaten[ing] to commit Domestic Assault or Assault" in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(c).
The State presented proof of more than one Shelby County incident that could support the single aggravated-assault count, but did not elect which specific incident the jury should consider. The trial court likewise did not require an election or instruct the jury to focus on one incident.
Trial rulings included: denial of defendant sitting at counsel table; allowance that certain prior convictions could be used to impeach if defendant testified; admission of testimony about a prior related case; and giving a general flight instruction (not limited to offenses other than evading arrest).
On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court the Court reversed the aggravated-assault conviction for plain error (failure to elect) and affirmed the evading-arrest conviction; remanded for retrial on aggravated assault.

Issue	State's Argument	Smith's Argument	Held
Failure to require State to elect which incident supported aggravated assault	Election unnecessary because closing argument focused the jury and evidence showed one Shelby County incident (Watkins was July 20)	Failure to elect deprived Smith of unanimous-verdict and double-jeopardy protections; plain error warrants reversal	Reversed aggravated-assault conviction for plain error: State breached clear election rule; constitutional right to unanimous verdict impaired
Sufficiency/form of indictment (use of "threaten" vs statutory language)	Indictment sufficiently tracked statute and cited § 39-13-102(c) giving notice	Indictment defective for not mirroring statutory phrasing ("attempt")	Indictment held sufficient to permit retrial; tracks statute and gives notice to defendant
Refusal to allow defendant to sit at counsel table	Trial court discretion; defendant waived or failed to show prejudice	Denial violated better practice from Rice and should be reversible	Trial court erred in denying seat at counsel table but error was harmless (no demonstrated prejudice)
Flight instruction not limited where evading-arrest charged	Flight instruction appropriate and evidence of flight overwhelming; instruction need not be confined here	Flight instruction should be limited so it not used for evading-arrest count	Instruction acceptable as given; failure to confine did not prejudice evading-arrest conviction (conviction affirmed)

State v. Knowles, 470 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2015) (election-of-offenses requirement when State proves multiple incidents for one charged count)
State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2000) (purpose of election rule to protect unanimity and enable sufficiency review)
Burlison v. State, 501 S.W.2d 801 (Tenn. 1973) (trial court duty to require State to elect and instruct jury on single offense)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (plain-error review prerequisites)
State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2006) (better practice to allow defendant to sit at counsel table; abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Qualls, 482 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2016) (constitutional harmless-error analysis applied to election error)