State v. Garrett
2011 Tenn. LEXIS 7
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- Garrett was indicted separately for aggravated robbery of Mexwayne Williams and for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery of Dexter Birge.
- The State moved to consolidate the three indictments for trial, and Garrett objected; the trial court granted consolidation without an evidentiary hearing.
- A jury convicted Garrett on all offenses; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions.
- On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court held the consolidation erroneous in both methodology and result, reversing the Williams aggravated robbery conviction and remanding for a new trial, while affirming the Birge convictions as harmless.
- The Court emphasized that Rule 14(b)(1) requires a hearing, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that Rule 8(b) cannot govern when a defendant objects to consolidation.
- The Court concluded the offenses were not shown to be parts of a common scheme or plan and that consolidation was inappropriate given Garrett’s objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the pretrial consolidation proper? | State argued common scheme/character under Rule 8. | Garrett argued consolidation without Rule 14(b)(1) hearing was improper. | Consolidation improper; required Rule 14(b)(1) hearing |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion in failing to conduct a 14(b)(1) analysis? | Consolidation was permissible under 8(b). | No hearing or findings; improper rationale. | Yes, error; required hearing, findings, and proper analysis |
| Did the erroneous consolidation affect the Williams conviction? | Consolidation aided prosecution and could be harmless overall. | Error likely affected the Williams verdict due to weak link to evidence. | Harmless as to Birge convictions; reversible as to Williams conviction; remand for Williams |
Key Cases Cited
- Spicer v. State, 12 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2000) (established procedure for consolidation analysis)
- Toliver v. State, 117 S.W.3d 216 (Tenn. 2003) (evidentiary considerations for consolidation)
- Denton v. State, 149 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2004) (Rule 14(b)(1) analysis required)
- Shirley v. State, 6 S.W.3d 243 (Tenn. 1999) (types of common scheme/plan evidence; 404(b) concerns)
- Dotson v. State, 254 S.W.3d 378 (Tenn. 2008) ( Rule 404(b) and consolidation interplay; evidentiary limits)
- Prentice, 113 S.W.3d 326 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (harmless vs reversible error framework for consolidation)