Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Appeal Assault topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant urges Tennessee court to narrow ‘imminence’ for aggravated-assault convictions after order-of-protection violation
Summary
At an appellate hearing, defense counsel argued the evidence was insufficient to support aggravated domestic-assault and related convictions because the state failed to prove the required mens rea and that the victim feared imminent bodily harm after the defendant tampered with security and fled.
At an appellate oral argument in Tennessee, defense counsel Joseph Mac Murray, representing appellant Nicholas Collins, asked the court to reverse convictions for assault, domestic assault and aggravated domestic assault on the ground that the state did not prove the defendant intended or knowingly caused a reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury.
The question on appeal, McMurray told the panel, centers on three elements: mens rea, imminence and the effect of an existing order of protection. "There was no threats, no punches, no contact, no communication, no weapon that was brandished, nothing. He ran away," McMurray said, arguing those facts undercut any finding that Collins intentionally or knowingly caused a fear of imminent bodily harm.
A state prosecutor countered that the evidence was sufficient and asked the court to affirm the convictions. The prosecutor summarized the trial evidence: Collins and his then-wife were married 11 years; after she sought a divorce in January 2022 she moved with their two minor children to her parents' home in Kingsport; Collins sent threatening messages, a video described by the prosecutor as menacing, and the woman obtained an order of protection that specifically enjoined him from putting her or the children in fear of being hurt.
On the night at issue, motion sensors at the parents' house were tripped, occupants heard alarms, and the wife testified she began shaking and felt a "sense of doom." Her stepfather, identified in the trial record as Mr. Gibson, saw someone running away, found security-system wiring cut in two places and valve stems on two vehicles slashed, and later discovered the victim's license plate missing. Collins was arrested soon after; officers recovered a handgun, holster, magazines and ammunition from his truck, the prosecutor said.
The state argued a jury could reasonably infer Collins acted intentionally or knowingly by driving to the home after being personally served with the order of protection, tripping the motion sensors, tampering with the surveillance system and thereby causing the occupants to fear imminent harm. The prosecutor emphasized that the order of protection and Collins' prior conduct were evidence that made a fear of imminent bodily injury reasonable.
Defense counsel pressed the court to draw a clearer line for what counts as imminence, arguing that not every violation of an order of protection equals an assault. McMurray said the facts, particularly that Collins fled when discovered and there was no brandished weapon or other immediate act of violence, did not demonstrate the required concurrence of intent and imminent fear.
Judges on the panel questioned timing and factual specifics, including when exactly the victim became afraid and whether the defendant admitted to having a pistol with him that night. The state acknowledged the firearm recovered was found in Collins' truck after his arrest and that the record did not establish the gun was on his person while he was on the property.
The appeal asks the court to clarify whether the combination of an order of protection, late-night presence on the property, tampering with security and possession of a firearm in a vehicle after the incident establishes the statutory elements of aggravated domestic assault as charged. The court convened further argument and did not announce a decision at the hearing.
