Case Title: State vs. David Willard Phipps, Jr.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 02S01-9607-CC-00068

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1997-12-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED December 22, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk FOR PUBLICATION 1 2 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE 4 5 AT JACKSON 6 7 8 9 10 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ( 11 ( 12 Plaintiff-Appellee, ( Henry County 13 ( 14 ( Hon. C. Creed McGinley, Judge 15 ( 16 v. ( S. Ct. No. 02S01-9607-CC-00068 17 ( 18 ( 19 ( 20 DAVID WILLARD PHIPPS, JR., ( 21 ( 22 Defendant-Appellant. ( 23 24 25 26 27 CONCURRING OPINION 28 29 30 31 I concur in the decision to remand the case to the 32 trial court with instructions; however, I would impose a more 33 precise standard for determining if the presumption of 34 vindictiveness has been overcome. 35 36 The majority states that the presumption of 37 vindictiveness “may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence 38 which demonstrates that the prosecutor’s decision was motivated 39 by legitimate purpose,” and further, “the State must proffer fact 40 specific, legitimate, on-the-record explanations for its conduct 41 which dispel the appearance of vindictiveness.” Majority 42 opinion, p. 20. Consequently, the proof presented by the State 43 -2- must show a legitimate, as opposed to specious, purpose for the 1 increased punishment which will dispel the appearance, as opposed 2 to the reality, of vindictiveness. This standard would not be 3 met with proof which showed only that the prosecutor acted in 4 good faith. It is the “fear of vindictiveness” which may chill a 5 defendant’s exercise of the right to appeal or collaterally 6 attack the first conviction. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 7 94 S. Ct. 2098, 2102 (1974). As stated in In Re Bower, 700 P.2d 8 1269, 1277 (Cal. 1985), “[t]he presumption is not based on the 9 subjective state of mind of the individual prosecutor and does 10 not imply that he or she individually harbors an improper 11 motive.” 12 13 In my view, this high standard cannot be met with 14 evidence of facts or information which was reasonably available 15 to the prosecutor when the original charge was made. I would 16 apply the rule adopted by the California Supreme Court in In Re 17 Bower: 18 19 In order to rebut the presumption of 20 vindictiveness, the prosecution must 21 demonstrate that (1) the increase in charge 22 was justified by some objective change in 23 circumstances or in the state of the 24 evidence which legitimately influenced the 25 charging process and (2) that the new 26 information could not reasonably have been 27 discovered at the time the prosecution 28 exercised its discretion to bring the 29 original charge. 30 31 Id. 32 33 34 -3- I am authorized to state that Justice Birch joins in 1 this Concurring Opinion. 2 3 4 ____________________________ 5 Reid, J. 6