State of Tennessee v. Susan Jo Walls
537 S.W.3d 892
| Tenn. | 2017Background
- 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)
