State of Tennessee v. Tonya Lavette Christopher - concurring, E2015-02038-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Tonya Lavette Christopher appealed the denial of a suppression motion; the appellate court affirmed the denial.
The majority affirmed on the narrow certified-question presented and declined to sua sponte analyze the newly articulated "community caretaking" exception from the Tennessee Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. McCormick.
Justice James C. Witt, Jr. concurred, agreeing with the result but writing separately to raise a potential conflict about whether the court should consider the community caretaking doctrine despite the limited certified question.
Witt argues that the record presents a plausible alternative basis—community caretaking—for upholding the denial of suppression and that the court’s independent duty to determine whether a certified question is dispositive supports considering such alternative.
The concurrence identifies tension between precedent refusing to consider issues outside the certified question (e.g., State v. Day) and the rule that an appellate court must independently determine whether a certified question is dispositive (Preston and its progeny).

Issue	State's Argument	Christopher's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless approach/seizure should be upheld as a community caretaking action	The court did not substantively assert a State position on McCormick; the majority affirmed denial of suppression on the certified question without applying community caretaking	Christopher argued Fourth Amendment violation; suppression denied by trial court and affirmed	Court affirmed denial of suppression but declined to analyze community caretaking under McCormick on its own initiative
Whether the appellate court may consider legal theories (like community caretaking) outside the certified question when the record supports them	The State allowed the certified question posture; appellee did not frame community caretaking as dispositive	Christopher contended the certified question preserved only the narrow issue she presented	Concurrence argues the appellate court should independently determine whether the certified question is dispositive and may consider alternative, record-supported theories; majority declined to do so citing Day

State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891 (Tenn. 2008) (refused to consider community caretaking analysis beyond the certified question)
State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988) (framework for Rule 37 certified-question appeals)
State v. Ledford, 438 S.W.3d 543 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014) (requirement that certified question actually be dispositive)
State v. Dailey, 235 S.W.3d 131 (Tenn. 2007) (appellate court must independently determine whether certified question is dispositive)
State v. Walton, 41 S.W.3d 75 (Tenn. 2001) (defining dispositive certified-question standard)
State v. Wilkes, 684 S.W.2d 663 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (courts will not assume jurisdiction via litigant agreement when certified question does not make final disposition)
State v. Bowlin, 871 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (refusal to overlook procedural failures in certified-question appeals)