IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

February 5, 2015 Session 

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEROME MAURICE TEATS

Appeal by Permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals 

Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2009D2955 Steve R. Dozier, Judge

No. M2012-01232-SC-R11-CD – Filed July 14, 2015

HOLLY KIRBY, J., concurring.

I concur in Chief Justice Lee’s well-written majority opinion in this case. Under 

the law as it currently stands in Tennessee, the majority has correctly analyzed the issue 

presented. I write separately to note the same concerns expressed by Justice Bivins in his 

separate concurrence in our recent decision State v. Alston, namely, concerns about the 

far-reaching constitutional holding in the case that gives rise to this issue, this Court’s 

1991 decision State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). See State v. Alston, No. 

E2012-00431-SC-R11-CD, --- S.W.3d ---, 2015 WL 2155690, at *9-10 (Tenn. May 5, 

2015)(Bivins, J., concurring) (citing Anthony, 817 S.W.2d at 299).

In Anthony, the Court held that double jeopardy analysis was “inadequate” to 

address dual convictions of kidnapping and other felonies that necessarily include some 

degree of detention or confinement of the victim. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d at 306. Turning 

instead to the due process clause of the Tennessee Constitution, the Anthony Court

determined that, in Tennessee, due process requires more than sufficient evidence of the 

elements of the crime of kidnapping. To support a conviction for kidnapping under these 

circumstances, the Anthony Court decided, due process under Tennessee’s Constitution 

mandates that the State also show that the “confinement, movement, or detention” was 

“significant enough, in and of itself, to warrant independent prosecution” for kidnapping. 

Id. 

As meticulously outlined in State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), a tangle 

of cases ensued, as courts struggled to apply the holding in Anthony. White, 362 S.W.3d 

at 567-70. In an attempt at disentanglement, the White Court rejected the separate 

appellate due process analysis mandated in Anthony and adopted in its stead a procedure 

by which the jury must be instructed that, in order to convict the defendant of kidnapping, 
- 2 -

it must find that the removal or confinement of the victim was greater than that necessary 

to commit the accompanying felony. 

Although White made procedural modifications, the core holding in Anthony

remains intact ─ for kidnapping alone, the due process clause of Tennessee’s constitution 

requires the State to prove more than the statutory elements of the crime; it also requires 

the State to prove that the removal or confinement of the victim was to a greater degree 

than that necessary to commit the accompanying felony. Indeed, the holding in Anthony

undergirds the issue presented in this case. 

The majority in this case correctly holds that a White/Anthony jury instruction is 

not required when a defendant is charged with the kidnapping and robbery of different 

victims. This holding obviates the need to consider the concerns raised by Justice Bivins

in his concurrence in Alston. Addressing those concerns, then, will have to wait until 

another day. 

 

____________________________

HOLLY KIRBY, JUSTICE