State of Tennessee v. Rosa Emma Honeycutt, E2015-00790-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Rosa Emma Honeycutt, superintendent of Tri-State Baptist Children’s Home, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of knowingly failing to report suspected child sexual abuse (Class A misdemeanor) based on allegations that a 14‑year‑old resident (CR) sexually abused two young boys (JC1, JC2).
Evidence: JC1/JC2 told Honeycutt and were spanked; one eyewitness saw CR fully clothed in a bed with JC1; another staff member reported JC1 said CR was "humping" him over a blanket; CR was later charged as a juvenile for rape of a child.
Honeycutt testified she investigated (spoke with the boys, CR, and others), believed nothing sexual occurred, had previously reported abuse twice in her 53 years working with children, and had no criminal history.
At sentencing Honeycutt sought judicial diversion; the trial court weighed statutory Parker/Electroplating factors but denied diversion primarily based on deterrence and the judge’s prior experience prosecuting child sex crimes.
The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the trial court improperly relied on the judge’s personal prosecutorial experience and deterrence rhetoric unsupported by the record, conducted a de novo review of the Parker factors, and granted judicial diversion.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Honeycutt's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying judicial diversion	Denial proper because Honeycutt, as the Home’s leader, knew of CR’s issues, received reports, and ignored them; deterrence to others requires denial	Honeycutt argued she investigated, genuinely believed no sexual abuse occurred, has no prior record, is amenable to correction, and is an appropriate diversion candidate	Court reversed: denial was error; de novo review found Parker factors weighed in favor of diversion
Whether trial court may rely on judge’s prior professional experiences in denying diversion	Trial court relied on prior experience prosecuting child sex crimes to justify deterrence concern	Honeycutt argued reliance on extrarecord prosecutorial experience was improper and required de novo review	Court held judge improperly relied on prior prosecutorial experience outside the record; review was de novo
Whether circumstances of the offense weighed against diversion	State contended the circumstances were negative because Honeycutt placed her judgment over statutory reporting obligations	Honeycutt maintained she investigated, had reasonable basis to conclude no abuse, and did not act to protect CR or Home	Court found circumstances did not weigh against diversion; evidence showed investigation and belief that abuse did not occur
Whether deterrence and public‑interest factors supported denial	State argued high deterrence value to public justified denial	Honeycutt argued deterrence not compelling given her age, loss of employment, and genuine belief; public interest served by diversion here	Court found deterrence/public‑interest factors did not outweigh other Parker factors and did not support denial

Key Cases Cited

State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (standard of review and limits when trial court relies on extrarecord matters)
State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (lists factors trial court must consider for judicial diversion)
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (established factors for diversion analysis)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (discusses deterrence considerations in sentencing/diversion contexts)