Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals hears challenge to 45-year sentence in Michael Chad Owens case

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in Nashville heard oral arguments in June in State of Tennessee v. Michael Chad Owens, where the appellant challenged his convictions for sale and delivery of heroin and methamphetamine, the admissibility of evidence tied to a confidential informant who died before trial, and the length and fines in a combined 45‑year sentence.

Why it matters: The arguments center on whether gaps in the trial record and the handling of evidence undermined the jury’s verdicts and whether sentencing and fines imposed by the trial court were excessive. A ruling by the appeals court could affect how lower courts handle video evidence, confidential informants who cannot testify, and procedures for preserving objections on the record.

Appellant’s case and issues on appeal Minjee Ball, attorney for the appellant Michael Chad Owens, told the court that Owens was convicted by a jury in April 2023 on four counts: sale of heroin (count 1), delivery of heroin (count 2), sale of methamphetamine (count 3) and delivery of methamphetamine (count 4). Ball said the state’s evidence showed the heroin weighed “0.1 grams or less” and the methamphetamine “right at 0.2 grams.” Ball said the trial court sentenced Owens on June 20, 2023, as a persistent offender to an effective 45‑year term and imposed fines of $40,000 (count 1), $15,000 (count 2), $20,000 (count 3) and $15,000 (count 4).

Ball told the panel that she raised multiple trial‑level objections that were denied and preserved issues in a motion for new trial, which the trial court later denied by order. She argued the most significant grounds for relief were (1) a breach in the first link of the chain of custody tied to a cigarette packet that Ball said may have been the vessel for the heroin, (2) a Confrontation Clause problem because the confidential informant who allegedly delivered the narcotics to officers died before trial and did not testify, (3) the admission of a senior‑year high school photograph of the confidential informant that defense counsel said was inflammatory, and (4) trial‑day questions about Owens’s competence and possible intoxication that were not fully reflected in the transcript.

On the chain‑of‑custody claim, Ball argued that law enforcement did not notice that the confidential informant had a cigarette pack and a lighter and that the apparent cigarette pack seen in video might have been the vessel that transported heroin. Ball asked the court to find a breach in the “very first link of the chain of custody.” She also argued that because the confidential informant did not testify, the defense was denied the opportunity to cross‑examine the person closest to that first link in the chain.

State’s response Ryan Dugan, arguing for the State, said the videos of the controlled buys and live testimony from officers showed the informant’s entire interaction, and that the jury saw the confidential informant walk back to officers and hand Chief Deputy Williams a cigarette packet and a folded paper the officers identified as containing narcotics. Dugan argued the record supports the trial court’s rulings: officers testified they searched the informant before the buys and found no contraband on her person and at least one camera recorded through the brief period when another camera briefly went dark.

Dugan told the court the trial court had reserved some evidentiary questions for a later hearing and that, because there was no contemporaneous objection at the introduction of certain evidence, relief would be available only if the appellant established plain error. On sentencing, Dugan said the trial court found multiple enhancement factors, including an extensive criminal history and violations of supervised release; the State argued those findings supported the range 3 persistent‑offender sentence and the consecutive components that produced the 45‑year effective term.

Record gaps and preservation A recurring theme in the arguments was the incompleteness of the trial‑court record. Judges questioned counsel about whether hearings and “jury‑out” bench conferences were transcribed, and both sides noted that some in‑chambers or post‑trial proceedings were not included in the appellate record. Ball said several relevant bench hearings were off the record and that some orders denying motions arrived by mail, leaving no contemporaneous transcript of the trial‑court factfinding.

Photograph and alleged prejudice Ball argued the admission of the confidential informant’s senior‑year high school photo—she said the picture showed the informant at about 17 years old—was inflammatory because the jury might view the image as that of a student. Ball said the informant was in her mid‑40s at the time of the buys. Dugan answered that the photo’s admitted purpose was limited (to identify the informant for witnesses and the jury because her face was not clearly visible in the video) and that any minor risk of prejudice was harmless in light of the other evidence.

What the judges asked During the argument the panel questioned counsel about preservation of objections, the sufficiency of the transcript to show any trial‑court rulings on motions for mistrial or to suppress evidence, and whether any testimonial statements were admitted that would trigger the Confrontation Clause. Counsel for Owens acknowledged she had not been able to point to a testimonial statement by the informant on the videos, but argued the defense was entitled to test the informant’s credibility regarding handling and transfer of the narcotics.

Current status and next steps The court heard argument but did not issue an immediate ruling. The panel—which identified itself as representing Tennessee’s three grand divisions—took the case under advisement and will issue a written opinion resolving the preserved and, where applicable, plain‑error claims.

Votes at a glance: none (oral argument only; no disposition announced at hearing).