Dave was extremely professional but more importantly I was treated as a person not a case. He always returned calls and emails in a very timely manner. I would definitely recommend Dave to help with legal needs! -Jennifer S.

As someone who never had a lawyer, David made everything as simple as possible. He is very easy to communicate with and provides all the answers and support you will ever need. If I ever need a lawyer again, David will be my first choice to contact. -Andrew

I was falsely accused of something and had an order filed against me. Ben represented me during court and successfully had the order dismissed. He also went above and beyond to make sure it would not show up on my record. – Brittany.

Home » Blog » Kidnapping Jury Instruction

Kidnapping Jury Instruction


CaseState of Tennessee v. Jerome Maurice Teats and State of Tennessee v. Ricco R. Williams

Issue:  Is a Defendant denied due process when he is convicted of kidnapping one victim and an accompanying felony of a second victim?

Facts: In these two similar but not consolidated cases, the Defendants were convicted of kidnapping against some victim(s) and an accompanying felony of against another victim(s) for conduct transpiring during single episodes. The trial court in each case denied the Defendants’ request for a jury instruction asking whether the kidnapping charge arose out of the same conduct as the accompanying felony, pursuant to State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012).

Appellate Decision:  The Court of Criminal Appeals issued divided opinions in both cases coming down on opposite sides.  In Teats, the majority held that a White instruction was not required, largely because the convictions were against different victims, rather than against a single victim. Moreover, the court held that moving one victim was not necessary to the commission of the robbery of the other victim. Judge Tipton dissented, writing that the recent White decision did not overrule the merger principals of the earlier decision in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991), and in this case the question should have been given to the jury.

In Williams, the majority reversed and remanded, holding that there is a reasonably probability that a jury, if instructed, could find that the binding of the victims was essentially incidental to the robbery. Judge Witt issued an opinion dissenting and concurring, writing that it should be left to the supreme court to overrule Anthony’s holding that due process principles constrict the use of kidnapping convictions against victims even though those victims were not victims in any accompanying felony.

Review Granted:  May 15, 2014.

Prediction: Ben thinks that the supreme court will craft a rule providing that the White instruction be liberally issued to let juries decide when the kidnapping of one victim is incidental to an accompanying felony against another victim. Otherwise, prosecutors would have too much discretion as to whether a defendant faces a conviction for kidnapping or the accompanying felony.