History
  • No items yet
midpage
State of Tennessee v. Susan Jo Walls
537 S.W.3d 892
| Tenn. | 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Victim Larry Walls, Sr. was murdered in August 2012; evidence showed a murder-for-hire plot involving the defendant Susan Walls, her daughter Dawn, and others; defendant convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy and sentenced to life plus 21 years concurrently.
  • Trial concluded May 8, 2014; defendant suffered a medical emergency mid-afternoon and was taken to the hospital; counsel suggested adjourning until the next day but made no formal motion and later conceded that his comment was not a motion.
  • The defendant returned; jury instructions began ~6:30 p.m., deliberations began ~7:13 p.m., the jury asked a question at 10:41 p.m., received an answer at 11:13 p.m. after a pizza break, and returned guilty verdicts at 1:05 a.m.
  • On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions, holding late-night deliberations required reversal absent unusual circumstances; Tennessee Supreme Court granted review focused on preservation, standard of review, and whether due process requires presumption of prejudice for late-night proceedings.
  • Tennessee Supreme Court held defendant waived the issue by failing to make a contemporaneous objection or formal motion and declined to grant relief under plain-error review because no clear, settled rule was breached.
  • The Court also clarified (for future guidance) that appellate review of a trial court’s decision to allow late-night proceedings is for abuse of discretion, not a presumption of constitutional violation.

Issues

Issue State (Appellant) Argument Walls (Defendant) Argument Held
Preservation / Waiver Defense comment did not preserve claim; issue waived without a contemporaneous objection Counsel’s on-the-record suggestion to adjourn preserved the complaint about late-night proceedings Waived — counsel’s remark was a non-specific suggestion, no motion or renewed objection was made, so appellate review was waived
Plain error applicability Any waived claim could be reviewed for plain error but requires all five factors; no plain error here Late-night deliberations are so prejudicial they warrant plain-error reversal or presumption of constitutional violation Plain error inapplicable — no clear and unequivocal rule breached; defendant did not argue plain error to this Court and record did not satisfy the five-factor test
Standard of review for late-night proceedings Trial courts have latitude; appellate review should be abuse of discretion Court of Criminal Appeals had required unusual circumstances and suggested presumption against late sessions Adopted abuse-of-discretion standard for future cases; rejected categorical presumption of unconstitutional prejudice
Merits (late-night deliberations / due process) No constitutional violation shown; trial court followed procedures and jurors opted to continue Late-night deliberations can coerce or fatigue jurors; prior decisions suggest reversal absent unusual circumstances No relief on the merits because issue waived and plain error not shown; the Court did not find late-night sessions presumptively unconstitutional

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. McGhee, 746 S.W.2d 460 (Tenn. 1988) (contemporaneous and definitive rulings preserve appellate review; tentative objections risk waiver)
  • State v. Estes, 655 S.W.2d 179 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (procedural objections must be voiced contemporaneously or are waived)
  • Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976) (expressed that late-night proceedings are disfavored; reversed conviction where defense counsel and jury were impaired)
  • State v. Parton, 817 S.W.2d 28 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (court held plain error where trial ran into early morning hours absent justification)
  • State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002) (recognizes trial court discretion in scheduling; appellate review discussed in related contexts)
  • State v. Knowles, 470 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2015) (explains Tennessee plain-error review authority and standards)
  • State v. Martin, 505 S.W.3d 492 (Tenn. 2016) (articulates five-factor plain-error test applied in Tennessee)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State of Tennessee v. Susan Jo Walls
Court Name: Tennessee Supreme Court
Date Published: Nov 9, 2017
Citation: 537 S.W.3d 892
Docket Number: M2014-01972-SC-R11-CD
Court Abbreviation: Tenn.