Cases | State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to second offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant, leaving the scene of an accident involving injury, and three counts of reckless aggravated assault after leaving the scene of an automobile accident she caused. The trial court relied heavily on the Victim Impact Statement Act (the Act) when considering admission and proper weight of victim’s oral testimony during the sentencing hearing and based its decision on facts presented in the victim testimony. The defendant was sentenced to probation. On appeal, the State argued that the trial court erred in three ways: 1) it incorrectly determined that the victim’s oral testimony at the sentencing hearing was governed by the Act; 2) it incorrectly concluded that the Act limits a victim’s oral testimony to “a mere reiteration of . . . statements . . . in the written victim impact statement;” and 3) it incorrectly determined that the victim’s statement may only be considered to determine the applicability of enhancement and mitigating factors. After examining the plain language of the statute, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court erred in these three instances. Specifically, it held that the victim had a right to be heard at the sentencing hearing and that the trial court should have determined whether or not the victim impact testimony contained relevant and reliable evidence relevant to enhancing or mitigating factors, and then decided what weight to give such evidence. The trial court’s judgment was reversed on other grounds and the case remanded.