Tennessee appeals court hears challenge to Hopkins conviction over jail call, late-disclosed video and sufficiency of evidence

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral argument in State of Tennessee v. Mitchell Hopkins over whether the trial court erred by admitting a partially redacted jail call, allowing a late-disclosed compilation video and denying relief on sufficiency grounds.

Appellant counsel Josie Holland told the panel she would reserve time for rebuttal and framed three main points on appeal: a Bruton challenge to a jail phone call, an evidentiary challenge to a late-disclosed “enhanced” compilation video, and insufficiency of evidence. Holland said the phone call was “one of the state's key pieces in, connecting Mitchell Hopkins to the offenses” and argued the prosecution’s play of the audio and subsequent testimony violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.

Holland pointed to a moment in testimony in which, she said, a witness initially said “Blue when he called back” and then “Mitchell when he called back,” and argued that the statement allowed a non-testifying codefendant’s identifying remark to reach the jury. She said the error was not harmless given the state’s overall proof: “It is reversible error, your honor. And that's because of the weakness of the proof.”

On the video, Holland argued the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a compilation shown at trial that included two photographs placed next to paused, zoomed frames of grainy surveillance footage. She said the prosecution produced the compilation in an enhanced form shortly before trial, leaving the defense “could not have an expert evaluate the moving footage” and could not test or respond to the demonstrative. “To come in, on the morning of bridal, and hear, ‘Oh, we've created this freeze frame version of the video with software that Hollywood uses,’ that approaches prejudice,” Holland told the court.

The state, represented by Kirby May, said the prosecution provided the underlying exhibits in discovery and that the redacted jail calls played for the court contained no names. May characterized the later comment tying “Blue” and “Mitchell” together as arising during examination and cross‑examination and as a nonresponsive statement by a testifying witness. May said the jury was removed immediately after the remark, counsel conferred, and the trial court gave curative instructions. “The redactions at that point removed all references in the jail phone calls that were presented to the jury to any of the other defendants, including the defendant here today,” May said.

May also disputed the defense’s characterization of the compilation video as a prejudicial, late “enhancement.” He said the originally disclosed, non‑enhanced compilation was provided months earlier and that the version described as “enhanced” largely consisted of pauses and zooms of the footage plus two photographs already identified in discovery. May said the defense did not present an expert at the motion for new trial to show how the compilation had been altered or how any alteration caused prejudice: “They did not present an expert saying, this is how it was altered. This is how it was prejudiced.”

On sufficiency, May told the panel the evidence included witness testimony, police identification procedures, admitted photographs, and demonstrative positioning of the defendants to help jurors compare the video to the defendants on the stand. He noted the jury acquitted Hopkins of the second alleged drive‑by shooting and argued that the record provided sufficient corroboration for the conviction that remains. Holland countered the state’s reliance on corroboration and on pre‑Thomas procedural rules, saying cases in the record fell under the older accomplice‑corroboration framework and that the remaining proof beyond the contested statements and video was weak.

The judges questioned both sides on timing and waiver issues: why a continuance was not sought earlier, whether defense counsel’s cross‑examination connected the nickname “Blue” to Mitchell, and whether the state had the burden to show any Bruton error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Holland acknowledged the defense had not put proof in at the motion for new trial about what could have been done with more time to examine the enhanced video and asked the court to reverse and remand for a new trial. May asked the court to affirm the trial court’s rulings.

The court took the arguments under advisement at the close of the hour. No disposition was announced during the session.