State v. Hatcher
310 S.W.3d 788 (2010) (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, a motion for a new trial may not be amended after the trial court has conducted a hearing and entered an order denying the motion.
Facts:
- On April 3, 2001, seventeen-year-old Shawn Hatcher was released from juvenile custody.
- That evening, Hatcher's older brother, Christopher 'Chris' Hatcher, stated he wanted to 'take care of some business' with a man named Randall 'Red' White/Moore, who Chris believed had tried to kill him.
- Shawn Hatcher, Chris Hatcher, Cornelius Jefferson, and Dan Smith, armed with multiple firearms including an assault rifle and a shotgun, went to an apartment where they believed Red was located.
- Upon arriving at the apartment complex, Chris Hatcher confronted a group of youths, and Shawn Hatcher urged him on, saying 'Come on, man, let’s go take care of this business.'
- At the apartment, Chris Hatcher and Dan Smith knocked on the door and opened fire when it was answered, killing Marcel Mackey and injuring Anitra Flowers and Red.
- In a later statement to police, Shawn Hatcher admitted to being present, knowing his brother's violent intentions, and firing a shotgun into the air during the attack.
- Hatcher's family members testified about a history of violent abuse by Chris against Shawn, which caused Shawn to fear his brother.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the Shelby County trial court convicted Shawn Hatcher of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and two counts of attempted first degree murder.
- Hatcher's trial counsel filed a 'Motion for New Trial', raising four specific grounds.
- The trial court held a hearing on the motion, orally denied it on all grounds, and entered a written 'Order Overruling Motion for New Trial' on October 3, 2005.
- After denying the motion, the trial court allowed the original counsel to withdraw, appointed new counsel, and granted permission for the new counsel to file an amended motion for a new trial.
- New counsel filed an 'Amended Motion for New Trial' and a 'Supplement to Amended Motion for New Trial,' raising several new issues not included in the original motion.
- The trial court held a second hearing and, on July 31, 2006, entered an 'Amended Order Overruling Motion for New Trial.'
- Hatcher appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, which served as the intermediate appellate court. That court refused to consider the issues raised in the untimely amended motion and affirmed the conviction on the issues properly preserved.
- The Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court, granted Hatcher's application for permission to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 permit a defendant to amend a motion for a new trial after the trial court has already held a hearing on the initial motion and entered an order denying it?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cornelia A. Clark
No. A defendant is not permitted to amend a motion for a new trial after the trial court has conducted a hearing and entered an order denying the original motion. The plain language of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b) states that amendments shall be liberally granted 'until the day of the hearing on the motion for a new trial.' The court re-evaluates and narrows its prior holdings in State v. Bough and State v. Butler, which had been interpreted to grant trial courts discretion to allow amendments at any time they retained jurisdiction. The court concludes that this prior, more flexible interpretation led to 'unjustifiable delay' and contravened the rule's purpose of achieving procedural finality. Therefore, to prevent sequential hearings and prolonged litigation after a motion has already been decided, the court adopts a stricter interpretation that the deadline for amendment is the hearing on the initial motion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, bright-line rule for the deadline to amend new trial motions in Tennessee, explicitly overruling the more flexible, discretionary approach previously allowed under the court's interpretations of State v. Bough and State v. Butler. The ruling prioritizes procedural finality and judicial efficiency over allowing defendants multiple opportunities to raise new issues after their initial motion has been denied. This holding forces defense attorneys to raise all potential grounds for a new trial before the initial hearing, as post-denial amendments are no longer permissible, thereby altering the landscape for post-conviction practice in the state.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Hatcher