Court Description:
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett
Although I concur with the majority's conclusion that the trial court did not err in suppressing the Defendant's blood test results and agree that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed, I write separately because I cannot agree with the inclusion of two sentences in the majority opinion concerning the adoption of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in Tennessee. The first sentence is: We believe that Tennesseans have adjusted well for over three decades under our State's constitution without adoption of any good faith exception . The second sentence is: We should not alter Tennessee Law.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs October 6, 2015 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DENNIS SPRAWLING Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 1401576 Carolyn W. Blackett, Judge No. W2014-02511-CCA-R9-CD - Filed July 5, 2016 _____________________________ ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., concurring. Although I concur with the majority s conclusion that the trial court did not err in suppressing the Defendant s blood test results and agree that the trial court s judgment should be affirmed, I write separately because I cannot agree with the inclusion of two sentences in the majority opinion concerning the adoption of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in Tennessee. The first sentence is: “We believe that Tennesseans have adjusted well for over three decades under our State s constitution without adoption of any good faith exception….” The second sentence is: “We should not alter Tennessee Law.” Whether to adopt a good faith exception is currently pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court, see Order, State v. Corrin Kathleen Reynolds, No. E2013-02309-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Mar 16, 2015), and panels of this court “have previously stated that „neither the trial court nor this court has the authority to create a good faith exception to the Tennessee exclusionary rule since an inferior court may not modify, revise, modernize, or overrule a rule created by the Supreme Court. ” State v. Jerry Brandon Phifer, No. M2013-01401-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 4698499, at *16 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2014) (quoting State v. Lonnie Taylor, No. 86-144-III, 1987 WL 25417, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 4, 1987)); State v. Helkie Nathan Carter, No. M2015-00280-CCA-R9-CD, 2016 WL 3044216, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 20, 2016). The Court of Criminal Appeals is „“an error-correcting intermediate appellate court.” Jerry Brandon Phifer, 2014 WL 4698499, at *16 (quoting Alsip v. Johnson City Med. Ctr., No. E2004-00831-COA-R9-CV, 2005 WL 1536192, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2005), aff d, 197 S.W.3d 722 (Tenn. 2006)). Here “[t]he State, in a footnote in its brief, asserts that this case is an appropriate case for application of the so called „good faith exception[.]” If we determine that in our role as an error-correcting court that we should address the State s assertion, in my opinion we should simply opine that our court does not have the authority to create a good faith exception to the Tennessee exclusionary rule based on well established case law. _________________________________ ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
