Opinion ID: 1058718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The crucial preliminary issue is whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had subject matter jurisdiction over Cawood's motion to withdraw evidence. As stated above, subject matter jurisdiction involves a court's lawful authority to adjudicate a controversy brought before it. Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727, 729 (Tenn.2000). Subject matter jurisdiction involves the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought, and can only be conferred on a court by legislative or constitutional act. Id. Jurisdiction carries with it power to determine every issue or question properly arising in the case. Stinson v. State, 208 Tenn. 159, 344 S.W.2d 369, 373 (1961) (quoting Carver v. Anthony, 35 Tenn.App. 306, 245 S.W.2d 422, 424 (1951)). In order to determine if a court has jurisdiction, we consider whether or not it had the power to enter upon the inquiry; not whether its conclusion in the course of it was right or wrong. Id. (quoting Aladdin Indus., Inc. v. Associated Transp., Inc., 45 Tenn.App. 329, 323 S.W.2d 222, 229 (1958)). Cawood filed his Motion for Withdrawal of Part of Record under the Supreme Court Rule 11 docket number with the Appellate Court Clerk in Knoxville. As indicated on the heading, this motion was addressed to the Supreme Court. In the motion, Cawood requested that he be allowed to have possession of all copies of the videotape and audiotapes now in the record of the Supreme Court. [5] The Appellate Court Clerk, however, directed the motion to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals did not have possession of the evidence at issue; instead, at the time Cawood filed his motion, the tapes were in the possession of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, inasmuch as the Supreme Court was the last forum to exercise jurisdiction in the case. [6] Therefore, absent a remand or other enabling circumstance, the Supreme Court was the only authority which should properly exercise control over the tapes. See State v. Arnold, No. E2001-00618-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 111306, at  (Tenn.Crim.App. Jan.29, 2002) (indicating that as a practical matter... filing a record, including the exhibits, with an appellate court brings the exhibits within the jurisdiction of the appellate court .... [T]he authorization for the return [of the records] would have to come from the appellate court.); see also Ray v. State, No. M1999-00237-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 388718, at  (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 18, 2000) (holding that the proper forum in which to seek return of the subject property is the court having custody of that property). Accordingly, although neither party raised the jurisdictional issue, we hold that the Supreme Court, not the Court of Criminal Appeals, was the proper forum to decide Cawood's motion to take permanent possession of the evidence.