State v. Cross
362 S.W.3d 512
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Bradley County charged Lonnie Cross with seven offenses arising from a high-speed chase after his revoked license was discovered.
- Jury convicted Cross on five counts (evading arrest, reckless endangerment, driving on a revoked license, speeding, and a related count for reckless endangerment) and acquitted on two (aggravated assault and DUI).
- Court later vacated one conviction (count three) on double jeopardy grounds, and this Court granted permission to appeal on double jeopardy and related sentencing issues.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals had remanded to vacate count three and to merge it with count two, and Cross challenged both double jeopardy and sufficiency arguments as well as sentencing enhancements.
- This Court held that the double jeopardy issue does not bar multiple convictions, vacated count one’s conviction for reckless endangerment as a lesser-included offense, affirmed other convictions, and remanded for a new trial on any applicable lesser-included offense not previously rejected by the jury.
- Costs taxed to the State of Tennessee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evading arrest and reckless endangerment violate double jeopardy. | Cross argues these offenses merge under Blockburger. | State argues offenses are distinct elements with different public policy. | Convictions do not violate double jeopardy. |
| Whether the trial court erred by instructing reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. | Cross challenges plain error in the instruction. | State contends remand for new trial on appropriate lesser offense. | Plain error; count one conviction vacated and remand for new trial on applicable lesser offense. |
| Whether the evidence supports Cross's evading arrest and reckless endangerment convictions. | Cross contends insufficiency for both offenses. | State maintains sufficient evidence from high-speed chase and zone of danger. | Evidence supports both convictions. |
| Whether the sentence is excessive given the enhancements. | Cross argues enhancements (8 and 10) were improper or duplicative. | State argues enhancements valid under post-Blakely framework and other factors justify sentence. | Sentence not excessive; enhancements properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn.2012) (establishes Blockburger analysis and threshold double jeopardy inquiry in multi-offense prosecutions)
- Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn.1996) (double jeopardy approach for multiple offenses in a single proceeding)
- Turner, 193 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn.2006) (proof of no injury not required for evading arrest; risk to others suffices)
- Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771 (Tenn.2004) (imminent danger standard and zone of danger concept)
- Payne, 7 S.W.3d 25 (Tenn.1999) (zone of danger and public-at-large charging considerations)
- Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424 (Tenn.2001) (remand on lesser-included offenses under double jeopardy framework)