Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tennessee appeals court hears challenge to assault and disorderly conduct convictions
Summary
At an appellate oral argument, defense counsel challenged the sufficiency of indictments and the evidence for convictions arising from an incident at Nama restaurant and nearby street; the state urged affirmation, saying the record supports guilt and jury instructions were proper.
A Tennessee appellate panel on Thursday heard arguments in an appeal by a woman convicted of assault (offensive touching) and disorderly conduct after an October 2021 incident at Nama, a downtown restaurant, and subsequent shouting on the street.
The appeal focuses on whether the indictments and the trial proof properly alleged and proved every element of the offenses, including the “reasonable person” standard for offensive contact and the culpable mental state for disorderly conduct, and whether the trial court should have given a requested self‑defense instruction.
Defense counsel argued the indictments omitted essential elements and that the evidence was insufficient to show anyone was “prevented” from carrying on lawful activities. “There is not proof that in either instance, it prevented others from carrying on lawful activities,” counsel said, pointing to testimony that a single bystander called out something like “chill it” while workers unloaded a truck and that there was no proof those workers were actually prevented from completing their tasks. Counsel also said the assault count “omits the reasonable person standard that’s in the statute,” and that the disorderly conduct count failed to allege the applicable culpable mental state, which the defense contends renders the indictments defective.
Ronald Coleman, representing the state, told the court the indictments satisfied State v. Hill’s notice requirements and that the record supports the convictions. “The proof overwhelmingly established guilt,” Coleman said, and he argued the jury could reasonably find the defendant’s conduct both rose to offensive contact and that her loud behavior at the restaurant and on the street caused bystanders and workers to stop what they were doing. Coleman pointed the panel to trial exhibits, including a video (exhibit 5) and trial transcript references (volume 3, pages 192–195), and described testimony that a cook in the back stopped his work and came forward and that workers unloading a truck told the defendant to calm down.
The panel questioned both sides about the legal standard the jury must apply. One judge asked whether an interruption is the same as prevention under the disorderly conduct statute; defense counsel emphasized the statute uses the word “prevent,” not “interrupt.” The judges also discussed jury instructions: defense counsel said the court should have given a self‑defense instruction and highlighted a trial‑record question from jurors asking the court to define “extremely offensive or provocative,” asserting that the jury did not receive a fuller answer based on an on‑point case that counsel later cited.
Neither side reported a decision from the panel at argument. The state asked the court to affirm the convictions; defense counsel reserved rebuttal time and concluded by noting unresolved legal questions about indictments and instructions. The court then moved on to the next calendar item.
