Suppress Results of Search of Defendant’s Home, Motion to

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the opinion. 

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

State v. Scott, 619 S.W.3d 196, 203 (Tenn. 2021).

[W]e review a trial court’s findings of fact in ruling on a motion to suppress with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710, 722 (Tenn. 2008). A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id.

State v. Hamm, No. W2016-01282-SC-R11-CD, 589 S.W.3d 765 (Tenn. 2019).

On appeal from a ruling on a motion to suppress, we will uphold the trial court’s findings of fact unless the evidence preponderates against those findings. State v. Stanfield, 554 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tenn. 2018) (citing State v. Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1, 32 (Tenn. 2017); State v. Bell, 429 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tenn. 2014); State v. Climer, 400 S.W.3d 537, 556 (Tenn. 2013); State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Tenn. 2009); State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891, 900 (Tenn. 2008); State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996)). “ ‘Questions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact.’ ” Id. (quoting Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d at 32; Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23). “The party prevailing in the trial court on a motion to suppress ‘is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Turner, 297 S.W.3d at 160; Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23). We review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id. (citing Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d at 32-33; State v. Walton, 41 S.W.3d 75, 81 (Tenn. 2001)); Turner, 297 S.W.3d at 160.

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Hinerman,  No. M2021-00251-CCA-R3-CD p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 4, 2022).

A trial court’s findings of fact on a motion to suppress are conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jones, 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Questions about the “credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact.” Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23. The prevailing party is entitled to the “strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences drawn from that evidence.” State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998); see State v. Hicks, 55 S.W.3d 515, 521 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court’s application of the law to its factual findings is a question of law and is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997). In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, this court may consider the trial evidence as well as the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. See State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 297-99 (Tenn. 1998); see also State v. Williamson, 368 S.W.3d 468, 473 (Tenn. 2012).

State of Tennessee v. Montella, No. M2020-00016-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2022).

A trial court’s findings of fact on a motion to suppress are conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jones, 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Questions about the “credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact.” Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23. The prevailing party is entitled to the “strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.” State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998); see State v. Hicks, 55 S.W.3d 515, 521 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court’s application of the law to its factual findings is a question of law and is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997). In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, this court may consider the trial evidence as well as the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. See State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 297-99 (Tenn. 1998); see also State v. Williamson, 368 S.W.3d 468, 473 (Tenn. 2012).

Linsey v. State of Tennessee,  No. M2020-01126-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2022).

A  trial  court’s  findings  of  fact  on  a motion to suppress are  conclusive  on  appeal unless  the  evidence  preponderates  against  them.   State v. Binette,  33  S.W.3d  215,  217 (Tenn.  2000).  Questions  of  credibility,  the  weight  and  value  of  the  evidence,  and  the resolution of conflicting  evidence are matters entrusted to the trial court, and this court will not  reverse  the  trial  court’s  factual  findings  unless  the  evidence  preponderates  against them. Id. (citing State v. Odom,  928  S.W.2d  18,  23  (Tenn.  1996)). The  evidence  is  to  be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party on a motion to suppress with all reasonable  and  legitimate  inferences  that  may  be  drawn  by  the  evidence. State v. Carter, 16  S.W.3d  762,  765  (Tenn.  2000). However,  our  review  of  the  application  of  the  law to the facts is de novo. State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998).

State of Tennessee v. McKinney, No. M2020-00950-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Cr. App. Jan 5, 2022)

A trial court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress are conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). Thus, questions of credibility, the weight and value of the evidence, and the resolution of conflicting evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge, and this court must uphold a trial court’s findings of fact unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them. Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23; see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The application of the law to the facts, however, is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998).

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals