STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOEL MICHAEL GUY, JR. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Karen Belcher on Apr 28, 2023

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Eric Lutton, District Public Defender; Jonathan Harwell (on appeal and at trial), and John Halstead (at trial), Assistant District Public Defenders; and Mark Stephens (at trial), Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joel Michael Guy, Jr.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Leslie Nassios and Hector Sanchez, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WITT

The defendant, Joel Michael Guy, Jr., appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, and two counts of abuse of a corpse, challenging the denial of various motions to suppress evidence, the admission of certain evidence, the constitutionality of the statute prohibiting abuse of a corpse, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of abuse of a corpse and arguing that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to a new trial. Because the defendant did not have standing to challenge the warrantless entry into the house where the murders occurred, we affirm the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from the crime scene on grounds different than those upon which the trial court relied. Even if the defendant had standing to challenge the entry into the house, the entry was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and the evidence was in the officers’ plain view. The trial court correctly concluded that the search of the backpack was an appropriately-conducted inventory search. The trial court did not err by refusing to suppress surveillance video obtained using the receipts discovered from the unlawful search of the defendant’s Louisiana residence because the trial court correctly concluded that the police would have inevitably discovered the surveillance video during the course of the investigation. The trial court did not err by admitting evidence that the victims intended to stop providing financial support to the defendant. The proscriptive statute criminalizing the abuse of a corpse is not void for vagueness, and the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions of these offenses. Finally, because we conclude that the trial court did not commit any error, no error obtains to accumulate. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: