State of Tennessee v. Teresa Sumpter, W2021-00119-CCA-R3-CD

From July 2013 to September 2015 Teresa Sumpter worked as an administrative assistant for solo practitioner Jerry Schatz and gained control of office bookkeeping, mail, phone forwarding, and online bill-paying.
Schatz was technologically limited and relied on Sumpter to prepare bank/account summaries and provide statements; Sumpter often delayed or altered statements and kept custody of various checkbooks.
In September 2015 an accidentally delivered Ally Bank statement revealed drastic discrepancies; subsequent bank reviews showed forged checks, altered statements, unauthorized credit cards, PayPal charges, and transfers from both the business operating account and the IOLTA trust account.
Evidence showed Sumpter purchased vehicles, paid personal expenses, and opened/used credit cards in Schatz’s name; Schatz compiled a theft total of $373,412.77, which Sumpter did not dispute at trial.
At trial the State initially lost a Rule 404(b) challenge, later renewed it and the court admitted evidence of Sumpter’s two prior theft convictions to prove intent to deceive; a jury convicted Sumpter of Class A theft (> $250,000) and money laundering; she received an effective 60-year sentence and restitution.
On appeal Sumpter challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for the theft conviction and (2) admission of her prior theft convictions under Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sumpter)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Class A theft (value > $250,000)	Evidence (bank records, vendor testimony, victim’s itemized totals) showed unauthorized taking totaling $373,412.77; Sumpter admitted many uses.	Victim consented or loaned funds; therefore not theft.	Conviction affirmed: a rational jury could find intent to deprive and lack of consent; evidence sufficient.
Admissibility of prior theft convictions under Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b)	Prior convictions were relevant to show intent to deceive at hiring and a common scheme to obtain access to victim’s accounts; proof was clear and convincing and probative value outweighed prejudice.	Prior convictions were offered only for propensity and were unfairly prejudicial.	Admission affirmed: trial court substantially complied with Rule 404(b), found intent a material contested issue, found clear-and-convincing proof, gave limiting instruction, and did not abuse discretion.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (sufficiency standard applies equally to circumstantial evidence)
State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378 (Tenn. 2008) (cautionary rule requiring restrictive approach to 404(b) evidence because of unfair-prejudice risk)
State v. Jones, 450 S.W.3d 866 (Tenn. 2014) (describes Rule 404(b) limits and procedural compliance requirements)
State v. Parton, 694 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1985) (prior acts admissible when intent is contested)
State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. 1997) (if trial court fails Rule 404(b) compliance, appellate court reviews admissibility de novo)
State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn. 2008) (jury’s role in assessing witness credibility and weighing evidence)