Preview:

I N

T H E

S U P R E M E A T

C O U R T J A C K S O N

O F

T E N N E S S E E

FILED
Appellate C ourt Clerk

November 17, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr.

S T A T E

O F

T E N N E S S E E

A p p e l l e e v . C H A R L E S A . P I N K H A M , A p p e l l a n t J R .

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

F O R

P U B L I C A T I O N N O V E M B E R C O U N T Y P . G U I N N , 1 7 , 1 9 9 7

F I L E D : S H E L B Y H O N .

J U L I A N J U D G E

N O .

0 2 - S - 0 1 - 9 6 1 1 - C R - 0 0 0 9 6

F o r

A p p e l l a n t :

F o r

A p p e l l e e :

L A R R Y R I C E M e m p h i s , T N

J O H N K N O X W A L K U P A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l M I C H A E L E . M O O R E S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l

a n d

R e p o r t e r

E L I Z A B E T H T . R Y A N A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y N a s h v i l l e , T N J U D S L E E A s s i G e M e m p O V s n h N W . C t a n e r a i s , . P H I L L I P S O F F E E t D i s t r i c t l T N

G e n e r a l

A t t o r n e y s

O P I N I O N

A F F I R M E D

B I R C H , J . We granted the application for permission to appeal filed

by Charles A. Pinkham, Jr., in order to determine the extent to which the district attorney general must disclose on the record the evidence relied upon to reject an application for pretrial

diversion.1

We find that the district attorney general has a duty to include in the record the factual basis and rationale for denying diversion. If, in petitioning the trial court for review of the

diversion decision, the petitioner contests the facts upon which the district attorney general relied, then the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute. The

trial court should not consider any evidence shown to be materially false or obtained in violation of constitutional rights as it determines whether the district attorney general abused his or her discretion in rejecting the pretrial diversion application.

In the case under submission, Pinkham did not challenge the evidence relied upon by the district attorney general. Rather, he contended that a portion of it was irrelevant, remote, and unreliable. Our review of this evidence leads us to conclude that

the district attorney general did not abuse his discretion in

1

Tenn. Code Ann.

Download pinkham.pdf

Tennessee Law