State v. Clark

• Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, PRESIDING JUDGE
• Docket Number: M2023-01427-CCA-R3-CD
• Decision Date: 23 October 2025
• Citation: State v. Clark, M2023-01427-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct 23, 2025)
• Parties: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GAVIN ALLEN CLARK

1

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GAVIN ALLEN CLARK

No. M2023-01427-CCA-R3-CD

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

October 23, 2025

Session March 11, 2025

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No 2020-CR-46,811F Robert Thomas Carter, Judge

A Coffee County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Gavin Allen Clark, with first-degree felony murder by aggravated child abuse (count one), first-degree felony murder by child neglect (count two), aggravated child abuse (count three) and aggravated child neglect (count four). Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide in counts one and two, and he was convicted as charged in counts three and four of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect. He received an effective sentence of twenty-three years in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following issues for review: (1) as an issue of first impression in Tennessee, whether the verdict is defective for ambiguity because within each count the jury simultaneously convicted and acquitted; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to act or serve as the thirteenth juror; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction of aggravated child neglect; (4) whether the trial court erred in deciding the McDaniel motions when the trial judge employed an erroneous legal standard and conducted an arbitrary hearing; (5) whether the trial court erred in permitting witnesses to testify about the Defendant's callous demeanor; (6) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress data from the Defendant's cell phone; (7) whether the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; (8) whether the State violated the Defendant's speedy trial rights; and (9) whether the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal.^[1] Upon review, we conclude that the verdicts returned by the jury in this case were ambiguous because they purport to simultaneously convict and acquit the Defendant. As such, the verdicts are unenforceable and cannot be given full effect. Under the circumstances of this case, we also conclude that the Defendant's convictions are not barred from retrial based on double jeopardy principles, and we remand for a new trial. We further conclude that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty as the thirteenth juror which also mandates reversal of the Defendant's convictions, and remand for a new trial. We address the Defendant's remaining issues in the event of further appellate review.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Reversed, Vacated and Remanded for New Trial.

Drew Justice, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Gavin Allen Clark.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Edwin Alan Groves, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Craig Northcott, District Attorney General; and Jason Ponder and Jennifer Craighead, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JEFFREY USMAN, Sp. J., joined, and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., joining in part and dissenting in part.

OPINION

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, PRESIDING JUDGE

The facts giving rise to the instant case stem from the death of the Defendant's five-week-old son, who suffered from severe brain injury as a result of five separate skull fractures while in the exclusive care, custody, and control of the Defendant. The cause of the victim's death was determined to be blunt force trauma to the victim's skull associated with child abuse, and the manner of the victim's death was described as "beaten by [an] assailant." The Defendant alleged that while holding the victim in his right arm, he tripped on a toy, fell down a set of stairs, and dropped the victim. The Defendant did not immediately observe any external symptoms of injury to the victim, and he did not seek medical treatment for the victim until nearly five hours after the fall. On January 5, 2020, the Defendant was arrested for the first-degree murder of the victim. On July 14, 2020, the Coffee County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant with first-degree felony murder by aggravated child abuse (count one); first-degree felony murder by aggravated child neglect (count two); aggravated child abuse under eight (8) years of age (count three); and aggravated child neglect (count four).

The Defendant's five-day trial commenced on September 19, 2022, and concluded on September 23, 2022. The proof adduced at the Defendant's trial consisted of the following testimony and exhibits. Before testimony, two exhibits were stipulated to and admitted into evidence: (1) a video showing the victim's parents entering Walmart to get their taxes done on the morning of the offense; and (2) the victim's medical records from Vanderbilt University Medical Center ("VUMC") and Tennova Medical Center.

Mother, the victim's mother and the Defendant's wife, testified that the victim was born on November 25, 2019, and passed away when he was "just shy of six weeks old." A photograph of the victim was entered into evidence. Mother returned to work three weeks after the victim was born, and the Defendant did not have a job at the time. On January 3, 2020, the night before the victim's death, Mother noticed "something [was] wrong with [the victim's] penis" when she got home from work. It appeared red, irritated, and swollen. Mother asked the Defendant what happened, and he said he did not know. They decided that if the swelling had not gone down in the morning, they would take the victim to the doctor about it the next day. When she awoke the next morning around 5:15, the Defendant was already awake, walking around the house, and had the victim up and awake. Asked why he had the victim awake, the Defendant told her that he did not want to wake her and that he had changed the victim's diaper and fed him. When she left the house that morning for work, the victim appeared "normal." She said he had an older bruise on his forehead from his three-year-old older brother. She agreed the victim's penis was "still a problem."

The Defendant and Mother discussed which of them would take the victim to the doctor. Mother told the Defendant that she was willing to miss work, but he told her that he would take the victim to the doctor. When Mother suggested that she would go with the Defendant, he complained that she never let him take the victim to the doctor. Mother relented, and the Defendant later dropped her off at work. Mother subsequently called the Defendant and told him that he needed to take the victim to "Urgent Care" because she could not get through to their doctor's office. Her timecard from work on January 4 was admitted as an exhibit and reflected that she clocked in at 6:45 a.m. and clocked out at 11:00 a.m.

When the Defendant picked up Mother from work, they did not go to Urgent Care as planned. Mother testified that the Defendant told her that he had already taken the victim to see a doctor. The Defendant also told her they "needed to start making sure that the kids kept their toys in their room." When Mother asked him to explain, the Defendant told her that their older three-year-old son's toy was on the stairs, and that the Defendant and the victim fell. The Defendant did not describe the fall to her. When Mother asked if the victim was okay, the Defendant told her that the victim was fine and that he had eaten. Asked if the Defendant fell with the victim before or after he had taken him to see the doctor, the Defendant initially told her they fell after he had taken the victim to the doctor. The Defendant changed his mind "two seconds later," and told her he had taken the victim to the doctor after they fell down the stairs. The Defendant told Mother the doctor said the victim "looked fine." They proceeded to Walmart to file their taxes. When they drove to Walmart, the victim was in the backseat of the car, asleep. Mother was not concerned with the victim because the Defendant said he was okay.

Mother testified that they were at Walmart for roughly forty-five minutes and returned home. Mother took the victim's car seat out of the car and placed it on the couch inside their home. When she took the victim out of the car seat, she observed that he could not "fully get that yawn and stretch out. It looked like there was something wrong with his mouth." She told the Defendant that something was not right, and they needed to go to the hospital. They went to Tennova Hospital. She did not recall seeing the Defendant again until the victim was being placed into a helicopter. She explained that, at some point, the Defendant had taken their three-year-old son to his parents' home. She remembered sending the Defendant a text message stating that "it doesn't look good that you're not here[.]" She said the victim was taken by LifeFlight to Vanderbilt Children's Hospital, where he was admitted to the intensive care unit for pediatrics. She and the Defendant took turns staying with the victim and alternated taking smoke breaks outside while he was there. She said the next morning, January 5, the victim passed away.

On cross-examination, Mother denied that the Defendant text messaged her that the police barred him from coming back to where they were at the hospital. She said the Defendant told her the hospital was on "lockdown" and there was no mention of police. She understood the Defendant to mean that he could not get inside the hospital. She agreed that she was married to the Defendant and denied living with another man and having a boyfriend at the time of trial. She could not recall whether she had previously testified that the doctor's visit, which the Defendant told her...