State v. Wilson
211 S.W.3d 714, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Carjacking in Tennessee is defined as the intentional or knowing taking of a motor vehicle from another's possession by force, intimidation, or use of a deadly weapon, and does not require proof of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, robbery and theft are not lesser-included offenses of carjacking under the Tennessee 'Burns' test.
Facts:
- On June 30, 2002, Officer Billy Moyer learned of an outstanding arrest warrant for Joseph Wilson and that Wilson could be found at a trailer park on Childress Street.
- Near midnight on July 1, 2002, Officers Moyer and Lassiter went to the trailer park and saw Wilson, but someone yelled 'Police,' causing Wilson to drive away at high speed, leading the officers on a pursuit.
- Wilson eventually returned to the trailer park, jumped from his moving vehicle, and fled on foot, with officers pursuing him.
- Officer Moyer tackled Wilson, but Wilson pushed him off and continued running despite a warning from K-9 Officer Joe Macleod that he would release his police dog.
- The police dog bit Wilson's arm, causing him to fall, but someone in the crowd hit the dog, and Wilson ran across the street into a parking area.
- Wilson approached Mr. Redrickous Burr's parked car, where Mr. Burr was sitting behind the wheel listening to the radio, and Wilson entered the vehicle.
- Mr. Burr was wedged between Wilson and the driver-side door and unsuccessfully attempted to exit the vehicle.
- Wilson started the car and accelerated with both doors open, brushing against Officer Moyer, who was pinned against another parked vehicle and feared his legs would be crushed, while the police dog was still biting Wilson's arm.
- Mr. Burr was able to leave the vehicle by crawling out through the passenger-side door as Wilson sped away.
- Wilson traveled a few blocks before wrecking the vehicle and fleeing on foot again, only to be caught by the police dog and subsequently handcuffed by Officer Moyer.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 25, 2002, the Robertson County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Joseph Wilson with evading arrest, carjacking, two counts of reckless endangerment, driving on a revoked driver's license (fourth offense), and resisting arrest.
- Following a jury trial on March 11-12, 2003, Wilson was convicted of evading arrest, carjacking, one count of reckless endangerment, and driving on a revoked license.
- The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on April 25, 2003, and sentenced Wilson as a Range II offender to an effective concurrent sentence of twelve years.
- Wilson moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Wilson timely appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s judgment on June 16, 2005.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are robbery and theft lesser-included offenses of carjacking under Tennessee law, such that a trial court's failure to instruct a jury on them, absent a request, constitutes plain error?
Opinions:
Majority - Janice M. Holder, J.
No, robbery and theft are not lesser-included offenses of carjacking under Tennessee law, and therefore the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on these offenses was not plain error. The court applied the three-part 'Burns' test to determine lesser-included offenses. Carjacking, as defined by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-404(a), requires the intentional or knowing taking of a motor vehicle from another by force or intimidation, but it does not include an 'intent to deprive' the owner of the property. In contrast, theft (and by extension, robbery) explicitly requires an 'intent to deprive' the owner, as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103. Because theft contains a statutory element ('intent to deprive') that is not included within the statutory elements of carjacking, it fails part (a) of the 'Burns' test. Furthermore, this additional element does not reflect a lesser mental state or a less serious harm/risk of harm as contemplated by part (b) of the 'Burns' test. Consequently, no clear and unequivocal rule of law was breached by the trial court's omission, thus precluding a finding of plain error. The court also affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence for Wilson's carjacking conviction, noting that officer testimony indicated Mr. Burr appeared 'frantic' and 'scared' and requested Wilson be removed from the car, supporting the jury's finding of force or intimidation. Sufficient evidence also supported the reckless endangerment conviction, as Wilson's act of accelerating the car while Officer Moyer was pinned, with an automobile considered a 'deadly weapon,' demonstrated a conscious disregard for a substantial risk of serious injury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between carjacking, robbery, and theft in Tennessee by establishing that carjacking does not require an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their vehicle. This ruling narrows the elements prosecutors must prove for carjacking convictions, potentially making them easier to obtain by focusing solely on the violent taking rather than the perpetrator's long-term motive. For law students, it emphasizes the importance of meticulously analyzing statutory elements when determining lesser-included offenses, particularly when applying tests like 'Burns.' The decision also reinforces the high bar for 'plain error' review, indicating that an unrequested jury instruction omission will not warrant reversal unless a clear legal rule was demonstrably breached.
