State v. Meyer

• Decision Date: 21 June 1999
• Citation: 994 S.W.2d 129
• Parties: STATE of Tennessee, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. J.C. MEYER, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 129

994 S.W.2d 129

STATE of Tennessee, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. J.C. MEYER, Defendant/Appellant.

Supreme Court of Tennessee,

at Knoxville.

June 21, 1999.

Charles M. Corn, District Public Defender, Cleveland, for appellant.

Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, Elizabeth B. Marney, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Jerry N. Estes, District Attorney General, Richard Newman, Assistant District Attorney, Athens, for appellee.

O P I N I O N

DROWOTA, J.

In this appeal, we consider whether erroneous instructions read to the jury amounted to harmless error. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that if the Defendant were convicted of rape of a child, his sentence would range from twenty-five to forty years for each count. However, the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that a person convicted of rape of a child would have to serve 5.73 years before his or her earliest release eligibility date, when in fact a person so convicted must serve the entire sentence undiminished by any sentence reduction credits. After he was convicted of two counts of rape of a child, the Defendant appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that, although the jury instruction was incorrect, the error was harmless. On appeal to this Court, the State now concedes that the trial court's error was, in fact, harmful. We agree and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1996, the Defendant was charged with four counts of rape of a child, stemming from events occurring between January and May 1995, in which the Defendant allegedly vaginally and orally raped his girlfriend's eight-year-old child. Two counts were later dismissed and the Defendant was tried in McMinn County in October of 1996. Following closing arguments, the Defendant requested the trial court to instruct the jury on possible penalties for the charged offense as well as lesser included offenses. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-201(b) (Supp.1995). ¹ The jury was charged as follows:

We're gonna talk now about the range of punishment of the allegations here today. The jury will not attempt to fix any sentence. However, you may weigh and consider the meaning of a sentence of imprisonment, and set a fine in the amounts indicated below, if you wish to do so. The range of punishment for the crimes involved herein are as follows:

25 to 40 years in the state penitentiary for the crime of rape of a child, and a fine of some amount not exceeding $50,000.

12 to 20 years in the state penitentiary for the crime of aggravated sexual battery, and a fine in some amount not exceeding $25,000.

You are further informed that the minimum number of years a person sentenced to imprisonment for the offense of rape of a child must serve before reaching the earliest release eligibility date is 5.73 years. You are further informed that the minimum number of years a person sentenced to imprisonment for the offense of aggravated sexual battery must serve before reaching the earliest release eligibility date is 2.75 years. Whether a defendant is actually released from incarceration on the date when first eligible for release is a discretionary decision made by the Board of Parole for the State of Tennessee and is based on many factors. The Board of Parole has the authority to require a defendant to serve the entire sentence imposed by the Court.

The jury convicted the Defendant of two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial.

The Defendant raised several issues on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, including the argument that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the Defendant would be eligible for release following a conviction of child rape upon serving 5.73 years of his sentence. Despite finding that the trial judge's instruction was incorrect, the Court of Criminal Appeals found the error to be harmless due to "substantial" evidence in support of a conviction. Holding that the other issues raised by the Defendant were without merit, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Subsequently, the Defendant appealed to this Court, raising the sole contention that the trial court's erroneous jury charge constituted reversible error and, thus, the Defendant is entitled to a new trial.

DISCUSSION

It is beyond dispute that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the Defendant, if convicted of one count of rape of a child, would be eligible for release after serving 5.73 years in prison. Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 40-35-501(i)(3) (Supp.1995) and 39-13-523(b) (Supp.1995) provide that a defendant convicted of child rape is not eligible for early release and, thus, must serve the entire sentence imposed. Relying on our decision in State v. Cook, 816 S.W.2d 322 (Tenn.1991), the State now concedes that the trial court's erroneous jury instruction constitutes reversible error and that the defendant is entitled to a new trial. We agree.

In Cook, the defendant, charged with multiple counts of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery, requested the trial judge to instruct the jury on possible punishment for the charged offenses and lesser included offenses in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. §...