Opinion ID: 1060413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Review of Evidence by Appellate Court

Text: The defendant argues, and the State concedes, that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by considering evidence presented at the trial on the merits of the offenses charged, in addition to that considered by the district attorney general. We made it clear in Curry that a trial court is limited to considering only the evidence considered by the district attorney general and to resolving any factual disputes raised by the parties. See State v. Curry, 988 S.W.2d at 157 (citation omitted); see also State v. Winsett, 882 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993). In concluding that it must examine the evidence presented at trial, the Court of Criminal Appeals cited this Court's decision in State v. Henning, in which this Court said that when evaluating the correctness of a trial court's ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress, appellate courts may consider the proof adduced both at the suppression hearing and at the trial. 975 S.W.2d 290, 299 (Tenn.1998). Our decision in Henning is not applicable to the review of a trial court's ruling on a pretrial diversion matter, which is governed by the narrow procedures of certiorari review as outlined above. Indeed, review of the evidence presented after the district attorney general's determination inherently conflicts with the applicable standard of review. Therefore, as the parties agree, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by considering evidence presented at trial.