The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the denial of pretrial diversion in two cases, which were consolidated for oral argument. In these appeals, the Supreme Court reiterated the process district attorneys general, trial courts, and appellate courts must follow when reviewing a prosecutor’s denial of pretrial diversion.
In one appeal, Susan Gail Stephens was indicted for two counts of statutory rape and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor after allegedly engaging in intercourse with a 17-year-old boy. In the second case, Gary Hamilton, formerly a teacher’s assistant assigned to in-school suspension at Fulton High School in Knoxville, was indicted for assault causing bodily injury after he allegedly attacked a student. Both Mrs. Stephens and Mr. Hamilton applied for, but were denied, pretrial diversion.
Pretrial diversion allows a district attorney general to suspend prosecution of a qualified defendant for up to two years. When evaluating an application for pretrial diversion, a prosecutor must consider a defendant’s amenability to correction, any factors that can reflect whether the defendant will become a repeat offender, the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s criminal record, social history, physical and mental condition, the need for general deterrence, and the likelihood that pretrial diversion will serve the ends of justice and the best interests of both the public and the defendant. When denying an application, the prosecutor must issue a written decision addressing the relevant factors and explaining the basis for the denial.
A defendant denied pretrial diversion may ask a trial court to review the decision, which both defendants in these cases did. In conducting its review, a trial court presumes the prosecutor’s decision was correct and asks whether the prosecutor abused his or her discretion. Here, the trial courts found that the prosecutors did not abuse their discretion by denying Mrs. Stephens and Mr. Hamilton pretrial diversion. Both defendants then appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Court of Criminal Appeals must presume the prosecutor’s decision was correct and modify it only for an abuse of discretion. In these cases, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the prosecutors abused their discretion by failing to provide substantial evidence to support the denial.
The State then sought and obtained permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. After analyzing previous pretrial diversion decisions, the Supreme Court highlighted the Court of Criminal Appeals’ limited role in reviewing the denial of an application for pretrial diversion.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the discretion to grant or deny pretrial diversion rests with the prosecutor, not the reviewing court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
“The role of the reviewing court is not to reweigh the evidence or determine whether the reviewing court agrees with the prosecutor’s conclusion; instead, the reviewing court must focus on whether the prosecutor provided sufficient evidence and engaged in proper methodology,” wrote Justice Cornelia A. Clark in the Stephens opinion.
In both appeals, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s judgment denying each defendant’s petition and remanded to the trial court.
To read the unanimous opinions in State of Tennessee v. Susan Gail Stephens and State of Tennessee v. Gary Hamilton, authored by Justice Clark, go to the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.