State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370

Background

Defendant Dorantes extradited from Mexico to face TN charges for aggravated child abuse and felony murder by aggravated child abuse.
Convicted on both counts; trial court imposed life for felony murder and 22-year term for aggravated child abuse, consecutive.
Court of Criminal Appeals reversed aggravated child abuse conviction but upheld felony murder; this Court granted discretionary review.
Extradition and specialty terms limited charges to felony murder by aggravated child abuse and aggravated child abuse; two additional counts for felony murder by aggravated child neglect were dismissed.
Autopsy showed extensive, non-accidental injuries including severe burns and blunt-force head injury; victim died within hours after injuries.
Evidence was entirely circumstantial; no eyewitnesses or confessions; defense elected not to present proof.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence suffices to sustain aggravated child abuse and felony murder by aggravated child abuse	State contends circumstantial evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Dorantes argues evidence insufficient to prove aggravated child abuse and that felony murder cannot be based on neglect.	Sufficiency sustained for both aggravated child abuse and felony murder by aggravated child abuse.
Whether felony murder may be predicated on aggravated child neglect given extradition terms	State argues charges were valid under extradition and criminal responsibility theories.	Dorantes contends neglect-based murder theory improperly adjudicated due to extradition scope.	Extradition terms control; the court upheld the convictions based on criminal responsibility theory.
Whether trial court erred by denying a defense request for a special jury instruction on aggravated child abuse through injury rather than neglect	State argues pattern instruction adequately conveyed requirement to inflict injury.	Dorantes asserts instruction would clarify that injury, not mere neglect, is required.	denial of the special instruction was not reversible error; charge adequate.
Whether the sentencing scheme violated Blakely/Gomez principles and whether enhancement factors were properly applied	State argues some enhancement factors valid; flight and criminal responsibility justify enhance/consecutive sentences.	Dorantes argues improper reliance on judge-found enhancements; some factors unconstitutional post-Gomez.	Three challenged enhancements invalid; two-year upgrade for prior misdemeanors upheld; consecutive sentences affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hodges, 7 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1998) (separate offenses for aggravated child abuse/neglect; murder predicated on either form possible)
State v. Mateyko, 53 S.W.3d 666 (Tenn. 2001) (child abuse through injury or neglect; single offense under prior law; distinguishes later separate offenses)
State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007) (Sixth Amendment constraints on judge-found enhancements; shifting applicability of Gomez in sentencing)
State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395 (Tenn. 2008) (criminal responsibility theory as basis for conviction where conduct of another suffices)
State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440 (Tenn. 2010) (clarifies sufficiency standard for circumstantial evidence under Jackson v. Virginia)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (circumstantial evidence standards; sanity of reasonable doubt standard)
Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (1954) (circumstantial evidence must be weighed against reasonable doubt; exclude every hypothesis not required)
State v. Crawford, 470 S.W.2d 610 (Tenn. 1971) (early circumstantial-evidence standard in Tennessee)
State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)