Tennessee Supreme Court

State of Tennessee v. Sabrina Renee Lewis

August 17, 20072007 Tenn. LEXIS 649

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Sabrina Lewis's convictions for criminally negligent homicide and facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery and her effective twenty-one-year sentence, resolving three evidentiary challenges. It held that a party-opponent statement need not be against the declarant's interest to be admissible under Rule 803(1.2), that the dying declaration exception survives Crawford even when the declaration is testimonial, and that an expert's evaluation of DNA data produced by a non-testifying analyst does not violate the right of confrontation. The court also announced that a Roberts reliability analysis is unnecessary for nontestimonial hearsay under either the federal or the Tennessee constitution.

Holding

  • Whether a party-opponent statement must have been against the declarant's interest when made to qualify as an admission under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1.2).. No. A statement offered against a party opponent is admissible under Rule 803(1.2) whether self-serving or disserving when made; the Defendant's videotaped statement was properly admitted as an admission by a party opponent.
  • Whether the victim's statement identifying the 'lady with the vases' as involved in the crimes was admissible as a dying declaration consistent with the Sixth Amendment and article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution.. Yes. The statement was testimonial under Davis and Hammon, but the dying declaration exception survives Crawford's ban on testimonial hearsay; the victim's reasonably based lay identification qualified as a dying declaration under Rule 804(b)(2) and was admissible.
  • Whether an expert who did not perform the underlying DNA testing may testify about the results without violating the defendant's right of confrontation.. Yes. Dr. Melton's testimony was admissible under Rule 703 because the data were of a type reasonably relied upon by experts, and it did not violate the Confrontation Clause because she communicated only her own evaluation of the data, not the non-testifying analyst's out-of-court statements.

Cited authorities

  • Rule 803
  • Rule 803
  • Tenn. R. Evid. 803
  • Rule 803
  • Rule 803
  • Rule 804(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence
  • Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(2)
  • Rule 701 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF