State of Tennessee v. Teddy Ray Mitchell
343 S.W.3d 381
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- A 2006 anti-immigration rally was held on courthouse grounds with security planned by local police including a checkpoint banning flagpoles and weapons.
- Teddy Ray Mitchell parked and, after being told where to park, used a racial slur toward officers and then rushed toward the checkpoint with a flagpole, flag, and signage.
- Mitchell argued with officers at the checkpoint about entry rules; he was warned he was under arrest as the confrontation escalated.
- Video recordings from THP and a spectator captured portions of the encounter; officers testified Mitchell shook the flagpole and engaged physically with them.
- Mitchell was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest; he was convicted of disorderly conduct and acquitted of resisting arrest, later entering judicial diversion.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, prompting the Supreme Court to review admissibility of evidence, sufficiency of the evidence under the physical facts rule, and First Amendment implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Mitchell's statement to Kyle | Mitchell’s statement was probative of state of mind and unlawful prejudice. | Statement is prejudicial and not relevant to charged offenses. | Trial court proper; evidence admissible as state-of-mind relevance. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disorderly conduct | Video and testimony show threatening, belligerent conduct in public. | Evidence does not prove violent or threatening behavior; videotapes undercut testimonial claims. | Sufficient evidence to support conviction under statute. |
| Free speech protection | Words and conduct could be protected expressive activity; state may regulate time/place/m manner. | Words were fighting words or unprotected; arrest violated First Amendment. | Conduct not protected; convictions affirmed; no First Amendment violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (Supreme Court 1942) (fighting words doctrine; some speech not protected)
- Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court 1972) (reversed for profanity; protected speech context clarified)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (Supreme Court 1971) (protected expressive conduct; contextual limits)
- Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14 (Supreme Court 1973) (arrest for protest without fighting words reversed)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (Supreme Court 2011) (robust public debate; breathing space for speech)
- State v. Creasy, 885 S.W.2d 829 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (verbal insults plus threatening body language required for conviction)
- State v. Roberts, 106 S.W.3d 658 (Tenn.Crim.App.2002) (verbal epithets alone insufficient; must be threatening with conduct)
- State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn.2008) (standard for circumstantial and direct evidence in sufficiency review)