STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SCOTT A. STINER - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SCOTT A. STINER

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jun 17, 2026

Head Comment: With concurring opinion from SWORD

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Jordan Long, Tazewell, Tennessee, for the appellant, Scott A. Stiner.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin L. Barker, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jared Effler, District Attorney General; and Andrea L. Bridges, Joseph Duncan, and Rondeau Laffitte, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): MONTGOMERY

The Defendant, Scott A. Stiner, was convicted by a Union County Criminal Court jury of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony, and four counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-529 (soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor)1 (2018) (subsequently amended), 39-13-504 (aggravated sexual battery) (2018) (subsequently amended). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective fifty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) he did not receive a fair trial because the allegations and acts that constitute the basis of the convictions were different than the allegations in the indictment and the bill of particulars; (2) the court erred by failing to sever the offenses during the trial; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age conviction in Count 6; (4) he did not receive a unanimous verdict for aggravated sexual battery in Count 3; (5) the court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial; (6) the court erred in admitting evidence in contravention of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7) the court erred in admitting a diagram that was not properly authenticated; (8) the court erred by allowing expert testimony that went beyond the scope of the witness’s expertise; and (9) the court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing on all counts. We affirm the judgments of the trial court

Attachments: