State of Tennessee v. Tedd A. Tjornhom, M2015-02207-CCA-R9-CD

Background

Tedd A. Tjornhom was arrested for DUI on June 1, 2013; TBI tested his blood and reported a .11 BAC on July 9, 2013 and noted samples "will be destroyed after 60 days."
The Williamson County Grand Jury indicted Tjornhom in December 2013 for DUI and DUI per se.
Defense counsel attempted to arrange independent testing and faxed proposed agreed orders in May 2014; an agreed order was ultimately filed in August 2014. Meanwhile, TBI destroyed the State’s blood sample in July 2014 pursuant to its 60‑day policy.
Tjornhom moved to dismiss or suppress, arguing Brady violations, a Ferguson missing‑evidence claim, statutory right to independent testing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55‑10‑408(e), and separation of powers/equal protection concerns.
The trial court denied dismissal but granted suppression, concluding § 55‑10‑408(e) required the State to preserve the State’s sample for a defendant’s independent testing and fashioned suppression as a remedy. The State obtained interlocutory review.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed: it held § 55‑10‑408(e) grants a defendant the right to procure an additional sample (separate from the State’s sample), not to demand preservation of the State’s sample, so destruction under the TBI policy did not violate that statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 55‑10‑408(e) requires the State to preserve the State‑collected blood sample for a defendant’s independent testing	§ 55‑10‑408(e) entitles defendant to testing of the State’s sample; statute requires preservation for independent testing	Statute grants defendant right to procure an additional sample, not to demand preservation of the State’s sample; defendant delayed seeking testing	Court held § 55‑10‑408(e) does not obligate the State to preserve its sample; it permits defendant to obtain an additional (separate) sample.
Whether destruction of the State’s sample violated due process / Ferguson such that suppression or dismissal was required	Destruction impaired defendant’s ability to obtain independent testing and thus denied rights to a fair trial	State argued defendant delayed and precedents allow routine destruction; prior trial judge found no due process violation	Only the earlier judge addressed due process; this appeal limited to statutory issue, and court reversed suppression on statutory grounds.
Whether the trial court could craft a remedy (suppression) for the statutory violation	Remedy necessary because statute provides right but no remedy was prescribed	State: case law does not support reading statute to impose preservation duty; remedy unwarranted	Court found statute does not create the preservation duty at issue, so no judicially fashioned suppression remedy was appropriate.
Whether defendant’s delay in seeking independent testing affects relief	Defendant asserted he requested testing in May 2014 while sample still existed	State emphasized long delay from July 2013 report to May 2014 requests and prior cases denying relief after long delays	Court noted delay and prior precedent but resolved case on statutory construction: statute does not create right to State sample preservation.

Key Cases Cited

Livesay v. State, 941 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (statute gives defendant right to have an additional sample procured for testing)
State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) (standard of review for suppression hearing factual findings)
State v. Walton, 41 S.W.3d 75 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review of legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999) (missing‑evidence instruction and due process analysis)