State of Tennessee v. Vanessa Renee Pinegar
M2015-02403-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- Controlled buys occurred July 29–30, 2013 at defendant Vanessa Pinegar’s residence; confidential informant Kristin Smith purchased crack/powder cocaine in transactions monitored by police.
- Smith and a second informant met officers, were searched (not strip-searched or checked in pelvic area), wired, and given buy money; recordings and recovered drugs were introduced at trial.
- Audio of the buys captured the defendant and a male voice (co-defendant Tyrone Wilkerson); Wilkerson handled the drugs and weighed them in Smith’s presence; Pinegar relayed calls and hosted the transactions but did not physically handle drugs or money.
- Pinegar was convicted of facilitation of delivery (one count) and attempted delivery (two counts) of ≥0.5 g cocaine within a school zone; attempted counts merged; effective sentence nine years and $2,000 fine.
- On appeal Pinegar challenged (inter alia) denial of severance, exclusion of cross-examination about Smith’s prior act of concealing drugs into a penal institution, admission of co-defendant’s recorded statements, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing. The Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pinegar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of cross-examination about Smith’s prior act | Evidence was properly excluded as irrelevant under Rule 404(b); trial court acted within discretion | Pinegar argued Smith’s prior concealment showed capability/opportunity and that exclusion violated Rules 608(b)/401–402 and confrontation rights | Waived on appeal; trial court did not abuse discretion; no plain error shown |
| Admissibility of co-defendant’s recorded statements (Confrontation/Hearsay) | Recordings provided context, not offered for truth; non-testimonial or not hearsay as offered | Pinegar argued statements were testimonial hearsay and required unavailability findings/severance | Statements were non-testimonial or not offered for truth; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause; no error |
| Severance of defendants | Joint trial appropriate; recordings admissible against Pinegar regardless of severance | Pinegar argued prejudice from admitting Wilkerson’s statements and that separate trials were required | No abuse of discretion; Pinegar not clearly prejudiced by joint trial |
| Missing witness jury instruction (TPI 42.16) | Not applicable because Flores was unavailable to both sides and would be cumulative | Pinegar argued instruction required because State didn’t call Flores | Instruction inapplicable; Flores unavailable to either side and testimony would be duplicative; no error |
| Criminal responsibility jury instruction | State used standard pattern instruction | Pinegar sought additional Dellinger language | Pattern instruction (TPI 3.01) given and is correct; no error |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence (recordings, informant testimony, recovered grams, location within school zone, Pinegar’s role facilitating) supports convictions | Pinegar argued insufficiency because she neither handled drugs nor money and challenged admissibility of Wilkerson’s statements | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could convict; convictions affirmed |
| Sentence enhancement | State supported within-range sentence based on role and prior misdemeanor convictions | Pinegar argued nine years exceeded minimum despite limited criminal history | Within-range nine-year sentence upheld; trial court considered relevant factors; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review of within-range sentencing is abuse-of-discretion with a presumption of reasonableness)
- State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2010) (plain error review criteria in criminal appeals)
- State v. Price, 46 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (co-defendant’s recorded statements that provide context are not hearsay for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015) (multi-layered standard of review for hearsay rulings: factual findings binding unless preponderated against; legal questions reviewed de novo)