Court of Appeals hears sufficiency challenge in Rex Martin kidnapping and firearm convictions

A Tennessee Court of Appeals panel heard argument in State of Tennessee v. Rex Martin on the May docket, with the appellant's lawyer arguing the evidence was legally insufficient to support convictions for aggravated kidnapping and for possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony.

Pat McNally, counsel for appellant Rex Martin, told the panel he would not reweigh the jury's credibility findings but argued legal error remained: "I'm going to try to show to the court that there are significant legal issues here in taking the state's evidence and as to why Mr. Martin should not be convicted of aggravated kidnapping and ... possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed," McNally said.

McNally told the judges the critical issue is timing: whether the kidnapping began while an assault was occurring upstairs in the home's office (making confinement incidental to assault under State v. White) or whether a separate period of confinement began later when the couple descended stairs and the defendant allegedly forced the victim back inside. "For purposes of review ... our position is that you have to start when they walk down the stairs into and she and Mrs. Martin started to try to walk outside," McNally said.

Ben Ball, who argued for the state, urged the court to respect the jury's finding and said the trial court's partial grant of a judgment of acquittal did not establish discrete, legally dispositive time periods of confinement. "This was not a judicial finding demarcating different periods of confinement," Ball said, contending the evidence supported a single continuous period of confinement from the moment the assault began until police freed the victim.

Counsel debated the legal effect of the trial court's Rule 29 (judgment of acquittal) ruling, with the defense emphasizing that the trial judge removed elements of especially aggravated kidnapping tied to use of a deadly weapon and to serious bodily injury. Ball acknowledged the trial court found an element missing for especially aggravated kidnapping but said the jury was still properly instructed and could find aggravated kidnapping under the White instruction.

The parties also disputed whether the defendant's post-incident possession of weapons supported a conviction for possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during a dangerous felony. McNally noted firearms and ammunition were found in the defendant's vehicle after the incident and argued the record lacked proof of constructive possession of those weapons "during the course of the kidnappings downstairs." He added that no ammunition was recovered, arguing that absence was probative on intent.

Ball responded that the jury could infer intent from circumstantial evidence: the defendant threatened the victim, left the home, returned with weapons in the vehicle's trunk and had a variety of weapons at the scene, including knives and long guns. "What we have here is ... a defendant who ... has gone out of the home and returned with more weapons in his trunk," Ball said.

During argument judges pressed both sides on factual points that determine the legal issues: the layout of the house (the office above the garage, a short landing and stairs), where and when the victim was restrained, whether a knife was used or displayed during the initial assault, and whether the jury's verdict forms (which returned a simple assault verdict on one count) limited the state's theory about a deadly weapon used upstairs.

The panel did not issue a ruling during the oral argument. The appeal centers on sufficiency of the evidence standards, how to apply State v. White and related precedent about when confinement is merely incidental to another crime, and whether the record supports conviction for firearm possession with intent to go armed.

Background details discussed in argument that appear in the trial record include the victim's testimony that the couple had moved to Rutherford County in February 2016, duct-tape bindings used by the defendant, the victim's use of a knife to free herself after the defendant left, the presence of three knives on the defendant at arrest, and multiple weapons found in the defendant's vehicle (testified to as including long guns, a katana, a crossbow and a tomahawk).