State of Tennessee v. Tabitha Gentry, aka Abka Re Bay, W2015-01745-CCA-R3-CD

In March 2013 Tabitha Gentry (aka Abka Re Bay) occupied a foreclosed, multi-acre gated residence owned by Renasant Bank, posting signs and chaining the gate; bank agents discovered occupancy while a sale was pending and posted a formal notice to vacate.
SWAT executed a search warrant on March 7–8, 2013; officers found Moorish National ID cards, signs, and items indicating habitation; Gentry was arrested shortly after leaving in a vehicle with juveniles.
A Shelby County jury convicted Gentry of theft of property valued over $250,000 and aggravated burglary; trial court imposed an effective 20-year sentence to run consecutively to a prior Shelby County sentence.
At trial defense sought to explore adverse possession through cross-examination and closing argument; the trial court limited questioning and barred adverse-possession argument, instead instructing the jury on the statutory affirmative defense of claim of right.
On appeal Gentry challenged sufficiency of the evidence, limits on cross-examination and closing argument regarding adverse possession, and the imposition of consecutive sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for theft and aggravated burglary	State: evidence (exclusive control, posted signs, prevented owner access, property value) supports convictions	Gentry: lacked intent to permanently deprive owner; statute excludes real property	Convictions affirmed — evidence sufficient to support theft (including real property) and aggravated burglary
Limitation of cross-examination on adverse possession	State: trial court properly limited to avoid confusing jury and because witness was lay	Gentry: restriction infringed confrontation/right to meaningful cross-examination	Limitation affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; adverse possession was a civil doctrine and not properly developed at trial
Exclusion of adverse-possession argument in closing	State: closing must be limited to law instructed and evidence presented	Gentry: could argue adverse possession as basis for claim-of-right defense	Limitation affirmed — closing limited to jury instructions and record; adverse possession not a jury issue here
Consecutive sentencing	State: consecutive term based on prior bond status and other grounds	Gentry: consecutive sentence improper because she was not on bond for October offenses when March offenses occurred	Reversed as to consecutive sentences — mandatory and discretionary bases for consecutive sentencing not satisfied; remand for resentencing

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (prosecutor's charging discretion)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (right to confront witnesses and cross-examination)
Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147 (trial court discretion over closing arguments)
State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771 (appellate standard and inferences from evidence)
State v. Reid, 882 S.W.2d 423 (limits on cross-examination and relevance)