State v. Watkins
2012 Tenn. LEXIS 154
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Watkins killed Elijah Cannon by striking the head against a wall; the charge included first-degree felony murder during aggravated child abuse and aggravated child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury.
- The jury convicted Watkins of reckless homicide (as a lesser-included offense of felony murder) and aggravated child abuse (a separate count).
- The Court of Criminal Appeals merged the reckless homicide into aggravated child abuse; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to address double jeopardy/divide-punishment theories.
- The Court ultimately adopts Blockburger as the Tennessee test for double jeopardy under the state constitution, displacing the prior Denton four-factor approach.
- Applying Blockburger, the Court finds reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse are not the same offense and may be punished separately; it reinstates the reckless homicide conviction and remands for resentencing.
- The opinion concludes with costs taxed to the State given the defendant’s indigence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tennessee should apply Blockburger for double jeopardy | State urged continuation of Denton four-factor test | Watkins urged retention of Denton | Blockburger adopted; not the Denton standard |
| Whether the charges arose from the same act or transaction | State contends counts arose from a single incident | Watkins argues discrete acts/units | Threshold shows same act/transaction; but Blockburger applied to determine if offenses are the same |
| Whether the offenses are the same offense under Blockburger | State asserts distinct statutory elements | Watkins asserts overlap and inclusion | Reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse have distinct elements; not the same offense |
| Whether Tennessee Constitution permits multiple punishments when statutes are distinct | State argues legislative intent permits multiple punishments | Watkins argues otherwise | Blockburger governs; legislative intent supports multiple punishments when elements differ |
| What is the remedy if multiple convictions are not the same offense | State seeks reinstatement of separate punishments | Watkins seeks Merger/resentencing only | Convictions allowed to stand; remand for resentencing on both offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (Supreme Court (1932)) (two offenses are different if each contains an element the other does not)
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court (1981)) (presumption of multiple punishment may be overcome by legislative intent)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (Supreme Court (1977)) (legislative intent governs permissible cumulative punishment)
- Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court (1873)) (finality of judgments; not two punishments for one offense)