Appellate panel to decide whether Walmart trespass notice was admissible in burglary conviction

An appellate panel heard oral argument in State of Tennessee v. William C. Sutton over whether a Walmart trespass notice stating the defendant was banned for “life” should have been admitted at trial and whether, without that exhibit, there was sufficient evidence to support a burglary conviction.

The issue matters because the defense contends the document was hearsay and that, without it, the state lacked proof that Sutton knew he lacked consent to enter the store. The state says the defendant signed the document, the signing was explained to him by a witness, and video evidence shows him entering the store and removing items.

Jackson Fenner, attorney with the Knox County Bar representing appellant William Sutton, argued the trial court erred by admitting an exhibit that purported to show Sutton was banned from Walmart for life. Fenner said the entry was hearsay because “the word life was written on the document, allegedly indicating a lifetime ban from Walmart. The witness, however, on the stand, was not the person who wrote that word.” He added that, because the person who prepared the document did not testify, “that word itself is hearsay within the document, which is also hearsay.” Fenner argued that without the exhibit “there is an insufficient proof, to prove the charge of burglary.”

Representing the state, Johnny Sirsant said the trespass notice “states in clear terms” that the defendant was banned and argued the exhibit was an adoptive admission because Sutton signed the document. Sirsant quoted the notice during argument: “This document constitutes formal notice and warning that you're no longer allowed on Walmart property, or in any area subject to Walmart's control.” He told the panel that a state witness testified he saw the document explained to Sutton and that Sutton signed it, and the state also relied on a video recording showing Sutton taking clothing items without paying.

The panel—introduced by Robert Wedemeyer and including Judge Camille R. McMullen and Judge D. Michael Sweeney, who the court identified as “a member of the court of appeals”—heard roughly 20 minutes of argument per side and asked no additional questions on the record. After counsel finished, the court said it had “read the briefs” and would “take it under advisement, and get an opinion issued, in due course.”

The court did not rule from the bench. If the panel rules that the notice was inadmissible and that other evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, the ruling could affect the conviction; if the court upholds admissibility and the sufficiency of the proof, the conviction would stand. The panel did not announce a timeline for its decision.

The proceeding was the first of two cases listed on the afternoon docket, and the court said it had read the briefs on both matters before hearing argument.

An opinion resolving the evidentiary and sufficiency questions will be issued by the court in due course.