Evidence, Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts (TRE 404(b)) and TCA Sec. 24-7-125
Unless otherwise indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
State of Tennessee v. Reynolds, E2018-01732-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Nov. 29, 2021).
The record in this case demonstrates that the trial court complied with the structure detailed in Rule 404(b). Thus, we will reverse the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of gang membership only upon finding an abuse of discretion. See State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 287 (Tenn. 2014); State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208, 240 (Tenn. 2005). “A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010); see also Clark, 452 S.W.3d at 287 (citing State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008)).
State v. Rimmer, 623 S.W.3d 235, 260 (Tenn. 2021).
The parties agree that, before it admitted the evidence at issue, the trial court substantially complied with the procedural safeguards in Rule 404(b), so we review its decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Jones, 450 S.W.3d 866, 891 (Tenn. 2014); State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997). Trial judges abuse their discretion when they cause injustice to the complaining party by applying an incorrect legal standard, reaching an illogical conclusion, or basing a decision on an erroneous assessment of the evidence. State v. McCaleb, 582 S.W.3d 179, 186 (Tenn. 2019) (citing Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)). In applying the abuse of discretion standard, appellate courts should not substitute *261 their judgment for that of the trial court. Id. Rather, appellate courts should determine whether the evidence supports the factual basis for the trial court’s decision, whether the trial court properly applied the pertinent law, and whether the trial court’s decision was within the range of acceptable alternatives. Id.
State of Tennessee v. Jarman, No. M2017-01313-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. July 6, 2020)
The second issue on appeal—whether the trial court erred in admitting the acquitted-act evidence under Rule 404(b)—is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, so long as the trial court “substantially complied with Tenn[essee] R[ule] [of] Evid[ence] 404(b).” State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 287 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 288–89 (Tenn. 2009); State v. Dubose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997)). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court “applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Id. (citing State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008)).
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
State v. Cianfarani, No. M2022-01200-CCA-R3-CD, p. 20 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 6, 2023).
Evidence is relevant and generally admissible when it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 401, 402. Questions regarding the admissibility and relevance of evidence generally lie within the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate courts will not “interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless a clear abuse appears on the face of the record.” State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799, 809 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007)).
State v. Atkins, No. E2022-01027-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 21, 2023).
Provided that the trial court has complied with these procedures, this court will not overturn the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 404(b) absent an abuse of discretion. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Allen, No. E2022-00437-CCA-R3-CD, p. 38 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 12, 2023).
When the trial court substantially complies with the procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), this court will overturn the trial court’s ruling only when there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208, 240 (Tenn. 2005).
State v. Wiseman, No. W2022-00680-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 5, 2023).
When the trial court has substantially complied with procedural requirements, the standard of review for the admission of bad act evidence is abuse of discretion. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Garrity, No. M2022-00725-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 18, 2023).
When a trial court substantially complies with the procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), this Court will not overturn the ruling absent an abuse of discretion. See State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208, 240 (Tenn. 2005). “‘Reviewing courts will find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employed reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008)).
State v. Jackson, No. E2022-00298-CCA-R3-CD, p. 19 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 13, 2023).
When the trial court has substantially complied with procedural requirements, the standard of review for the admission of bad act evidence is abuse of discretion. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Johnson, No. E2022-00302-CCA-R3-CD, p. 14 (Tenn. Ct Crim. App. Mar. 20, 2023).
The standard of review is for an abuse of discretion, provided a trial court substantially complied with the procedural requirements. State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 287 (Tenn. 2014); State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997); see State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court “‘causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” State v. Reynolds, 635 S.W.3d 893, 921 (Tenn. 2021) (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)).
State v. Summerville, No. W2022-00021-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2023).
Provided that the trial court has complied with these procedures, this court will not overturn the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 404(b) absent an abuse of discretion. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Primm, No. M2021-00976-CCA-R3-CD, p. 50 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2023).
If the trial court substantially complies with the procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), we will review the trial court’s determination for an abuse of discretion. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d at 240 (citing State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997)); State v. Baker, 785 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)). However, if the trial court fails to substantially comply with the requirements of the rule, then the trial court’s decision should be afforded no deference by the reviewing court. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d at 652.
State v. Moreno, No. M2020-01090-CCA-R3-CD, p. 19 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 24, 2022).
If the trial court substantially complies with the procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), we will review the trial court’s determination for an abuse of discretion. State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208, 240 (Tenn. 2005) (citations omitted).
State of Tennessee v. Dunn, No. E2021-00343-CCA-R3-CD, p. 23 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 5, 2022).
If the trial court substantially complies with the procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), we will review the trial court’s determination for an abuse of discretion. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d at 240 (citing State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997)); State v. Baker, 785 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)). However, if the trial court fails to substantially comply with the requirements of the rule, then the trial court’s decision should be afforded no deference by the reviewing court. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d at 652.
State v. McCulloch, No. E2021-00404-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 29, 2022).
When, the trial court substantially complies with the procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), this court will overturn the trial court’s ruling only when there has been an abuse of discretion. See State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208, 240 (Tenn. 2005).
State v. Burgins, No. E2021-00620-CCA-R3-CD, p. 28 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 28, 2022).
Rule 609(a)(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence allows for the admission of a prior conviction to impeach the credibility of a defendant testifying at trial. Such an impeaching conviction must be either “punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted” or “must have involved dishonesty or false statement.” Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2). Prior to its admission, the trial court is required to determine whether “the conviction’s probative value on credibility outweighs its unfair prejudicial effect on substantive issues.” Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a)(3). This court will only reverse a trial court’s decision in this regard for an abuse of discretion. State v. Williamson, 919 S.W.2d 69, 78 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
State of Tennessee v. Morton, No. E2019-01755-CCA-R3-CD, p. 27 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 27, 2022).
A trial court’s decision regarding the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; however, “the decision of the trial court should be afforded no deference unless there has been substantial compliance with the procedural requirements of the Rule.” State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Newson, No. M2021-00444-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 23, 2022).
This court reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Waller, 118 S.W.3d 368, 371 (Tenn. 2003).
State of Tennessee v. Jackson, No. M2020-01098-CCA-R3-CD, p. 30 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 3, 2022).
A trial court’s decision to admit evidence under Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-125 is reviewed for abuse of discretion if the trial court substantially complied with the procedural requirements of the statute.
Editor’s Note: in support of the above statement, the Court cited State v. William Eugene Moon, No. M2019-01865-SC-R11-CD, __ S.W.3d __, 2022 WL 1160781, at *7 fn. 11 (Tenn. Apr. 20, 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Roby, Jr. and Allen, No. M2020-00301-CCA-R3-CD, p. 16 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 23, 2022).
Before the trial court may permit evidence of a prior crime, wrong, or act, the following procedures must be met:
(1) The court upon request must hold a hearing outside the jury’s presence.
(2) The court must determine that a material issue exists other than conduct conforming with a character trait and must upon request state on the record the material issue, the ruling and the reasons for admitting the evidence.
(3) The court must find proof of the other crime, wrong, or act to be clear and convincing; and
(4) The court must exclude the evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). Provided that the trial court has complied with these procedures, this court will not overturn the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 404(b) absent an abuse of discretion. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
State of Tennessee v. Dawson, No. E2021-00913-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 18, 2022).
When the trial court substantially complies with the requirements of Rule 404(b), we review that court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. See Thacker, 164 S.W.3d at 240. “[I]n view of the strict procedural requirements of Rule 404(b),” however, “the decision of the trial court should be afforded no deference unless there has been substantial compliance with the procedural requirements of the Rule.” State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
State of Tennessee v. Patton, No. M2020-00062-CCA-R3-CD, p. 40-41 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 6, 2022).
Before the trial court may permit evidence of a prior crime, wrong, or act, the following procedures must be met:
(1) The court upon request must hold a hearing outside the jury’s presence.
(2) The court must determine that a material issue exists other than conduct conforming with a character trait and must upon request state on the record the material issue, the ruling and the reasons for admitting the evidence.
(3) The court must find proof of the other crime, wrong, or act to be clear and convincing; and
(4) The court must exclude the evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). Provided that the trial court has complied with these procedures, this court will not overturn the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 404(b) absent an abuse of discretion. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).
State of Tennessee v Moon, No. M2019-01865-SC-R11-CD, p. 12, fn. 11 (Tenn. Apr. 20, 2022).
As for the standard of appellate review of this issue, this Court has previously explained that when we consider evidence that implicates Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b), we review the trial court’s admissibility ruling de novo unless the trial court substantially complied with the procedures outlined in Rule 404(b). If the trial court substantially complied with Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b), we will overturn the ruling only if the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 287 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 288-89 (Tenn. 2009); State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997)).
State of Tennessee v. Willingham, No. M2020-01740-CCA-R3-CD, p. 19-20 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 20, 2022).
As previously stated, we generally review evidentiary rulings under an “abuse of discretion” standard. However, when we consider evidence that implicates Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), we review the trial court’s admissibility ruling de novo unless the trial court substantially complied with the procedures outlined in Rule 404(b). If the trial court substantially complied with Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), we will overturn the ruling only if the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 288-89 (Tenn. 2009); State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997). A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party. State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008).
Tennessee v. Sumpter, No. W2021-00119-CCA-R3-CD, p. 18 (Tenn. Ct. Crim App. Mar. 30, 2022).
Provided the trial court substantially complied with the procedure of Rule 404(b), the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Jones, 450 S.W.3d at 891. A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party. State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008). If the trial court failed to substantially comply with the strict procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), then no deference is given to the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, and this Court will determine admissibility based on the evidence presented at the jury-out hearing. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn. 1997).
State of Tennessee v. Tate, No. E2021-00217-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 28, 2022).
It is well-established “that trial courts have broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, and their rulings will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. McLeod, 937 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tenn. 1996). Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) permits the admission of evidence of prior conduct if the evidence of other acts is relevant to a litigated issue such as identity, intent, or rebuttal of accident or mistake, and the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b) Advisory Comm’n Cmts.; see State v. Parton, 694 S.W.2d 299, 303 (Tenn. 1985); State v. Hooten, 735 S.W.2d 823, 824 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1987). However, “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity with the character trait.” Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). Before admitting evidence under Rule 404(b), the rule provides that
(1) upon request, the court must hold a hearing outside the jury’s presence;
(2) the court must determine that the evidence is probative on a material issue and must, if requested, state on the record the material issue and the reasons for admitting or excluding the evidence;
(3) the court must find proof of the other crimes, wrongs, or acts to be clear and convincing; and
(4) the court must exclude the evidence if the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b).
State of Tennessee v. Reece, No. E2020-01589-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 17, 2022).
If the trial court substantially complies with the procedural requirements of Rule 404(b), we review its determination for an abuse of discretion. State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208, 240 (Tenn. 2005).
