STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID LYNN RICHARDS, JR. - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID LYNN RICHARDS, JR.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Sep 11, 2024

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Stephen Ross Johnson and S. Renee Hammond, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, David Lynn Richards, Jr.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Edwin Alan Groves, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Nathan Ogle and Sharon Kumi, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): MCMULLEN

The Defendant, David Lynn Richards, Jr., appeals his Knox County Criminal Court convictions for three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure (Counts 1, 2, and 9), two counts of rape (Counts 3 and 4), three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure (Counts5,6,and7),andonecountofincest(Count11).1 Onappeal,theDefendantargues: (1) if newly discovered forensic biological evidence had been presented to the jury, then it likely would have changed the result of his trial; (2) if newly discovered forensic electronic evidence had been presented to the jury, then it likely would have changed the result of his trial; (3) if the newly discovered records related to victim’s mental health history had been presented to the jury, then it likely would have changed the result of his trial; (4) his due process rights were violated under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); (5) the trial court committed plain error by permitting the State to play the entire recording of victim’s forensic interview; (6) he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel; (7) the State’s erroneous election for the rape offense in Count 4 failed to protect his right to a unanimous jury verdict in that count; (8) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for sexual battery by an authority figure in Count 1 and his conviction for rape in Count 4; (9) his dual convictions for sexual battery by an authority figure in Counts 1 and 2 violate the prohibition against double jeopardy; (10) the trial court abused its discretion by denying all forms of alternative sentencing and by imposing a partially consecutive sentence; and (11) the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to a new trial. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: