State v. Johnson
2011 Tenn. LEXIS 456
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- April 4, 2007: Watkins is robbed by two men near Midland Ave and Buntyn St in Memphis; attackers take shoes, cell phone, cash, and strike him.
- April 5–6, 2007: Johnson reports his 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier stolen; officer interview occurs at Johnson's home with his mother present.
- Johnson initially lies about the theft, later concedes to borrowing the car from a friend who suggested reporting it stolen; Johnson is arrested for initiating a false police report.
- April 6, 2007: Watkins identifies Johnson in a photographic lineup; Johnson is arrested for aggravated robbery and later confesses in writing to the robbery.
- May 22, 2007: General Sessions Court finds probable cause for aggravated robbery and binds over to grand jury; May 23, 2007: preliminary hearing on false report is held and the charge is dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- January 15, 2008: Johnson is indicted for aggravated robbery; Johnson pleads guilty to a lesser included offense of criminal attempt to make a false police report; December 11, 2007 and January 8, 2008: separate indictments and pleas occur related to the false report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 8(a)(1)(A) requires joinder of the two offenses. | Johnson’s offenses arose from the same conduct/episode. | No single episode; offenses did not occur simultaneously or in same place. | No; not part of the same criminal episode. |
| Definition of 'same criminal episode' under Rule 8(a)(1)(A). | ABA Standards support a same-episode approach where proof of one offense involves proof of the other. | Traditional Tennessee cases require temporal/place proximity and substantial interrelation. | The two offenses are not a single criminal episode. |
| Impact of separate prosecutions on the State's ability to prosecute both charges. | Mandatory joinder prevents piecemeal litigation and backloading charges. | Joinder not required where not same episode; severance permissible under Rule 14 for permissive joinder. | Not applicable since there is no same-episode requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baird, 88 S.W.3d 617 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (mandated joinder to avoid backloading charges; supports policy of efficiency)
- State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243 (Tenn. 1999) (discusses discretion in consolidation; historical context)
- Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. 1973) (first articulation of 'single criminal episode' concept)
- State v. Black, 524 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1975) (not identical offenses within a single episode; differing elements)
- State v. Rogers, 703 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (illustrates relation between offenses and evidence; related considerations)
- State v. Shepherd, 902 S.W.2d 895 (Tenn. 1995) (ppp (proof must be inextricably connected) between offenses)