Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Knox County Murder Case

The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for facilitation of aggravated robbery and facilitation of the first degree murder of a Knox County man.

In February 2002, the victim, Gary Lindsay, was robbed and murdered in the home of the defendant, Thomas Hutchison. After a trial, a Knox County jury convicted Mr. Hutchison of facilitation of aggravated robbery and facilitation of the first degree murder of Mr. Lindsay.

Mr. Hutchison appealed his convictions. He argued that his constitutional rights were violated during the trial in at least two ways. First, because the autopsy report on the victim was performed by a medical examiner who did not testify at trial, Mr. Hutchison argued that admission of the autopsy report through the testimony of another medical examiner violated Mr. Hutchison’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Second, because police officers who entered Mr. Hutchison’s home seized evidence without first obtaining a warrant, Mr. Hutchison contended that the warrantless search violated the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, so the trial court should not have allowed the admission of these items into evidence at his trial.

The Court of Criminal Appeals found no violation of Mr. Hutchison’s constitutional rights and affirmed the convictions. Mr. Hutchison was then granted permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

As to the autopsy report, the Supreme Court explained that the Confrontation Clause in the United States Constitution applies to witnesses against the accused, in other words, those who “bear testimony” against the defendant. To decide whether the Confrontation Clause applies when a written statement such as an autopsy report is admitted into evidence, a court must determine whether the written statement is testimonial, that is, whether it amounts to testimony against the defendant. If it is testimonial, the defendant has a constitutional right to confront or cross-examine the person who prepared the written statement. After reviewing recent United States Supreme Court cases involving the Confrontation Clause, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the autopsy report on Mr. Lindsay was not testimonial, so its admission into evidence did not violate Mr. Hutchison’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.

The Supreme Court then addressed the search of Mr. Hutchison’s home without a search warrant. The facts of the case were that a 9-1-1 caller reported a murder at Mr. Hutchison’s home and, when the first responding police officer arrived, people outside the home indicated that there was an emergency inside the home. In that situation, there were exigent circumstances that justified the police officer’s entry into Mr. Hutchison’s home without a search warrant. After the first police officer lawfully entered Mr. Hutchison’s home, the Supreme Court explained, he was authorized to seize any items that were in plain view, even without a search warrant.

In this case, however, the evidence Mr. Hutchison objected to was photographed and processed by other police officers who entered Mr. Hutchison’s home shortly after the initial responding officer. By the time the other officers entered the home, the Supreme Court explained, the evidence that had been in the plain view of the first responding officer had already been lawfully seized by police authorities, and the later officers’ entry into Mr. Hutchison’s home was merely a continuation of the initial officer’s lawful exigent circumstances entry. Consequently, even without a search warrant, the officers who followed the initial officer could lawfully take and process evidence that would have been in plain view of the officer who initially responded to the 9-1-1 call. The Supreme Court held that the admission of these items into evidence did not violate Mr. Hutchison’s constitutional rights.

Having concluded there was no violation of Mr. Hutchison’s constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions for facilitation of aggravated robbery and facilitation of first degree murder.

Read the unanimous opinion in State of Tennessee v. Thomas Lee Hutchison, authored by Justice Holly Kirby.