James Earl Kirk, et al. vs. State

In this interlocutory appeal the State raises the question of whether the Maury County Circuit Court, relying on Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a), erred by ordering that all proceedings in a case heard in general sessions court must be heard in the court closest to the location of the offense. It is the opinion of this Court that the plain language of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a) controls the outcome of this case. The controversy in this case turns on the word "nearest" as used in the statute. A cursory reading of the statute could understandably lead one to believe that the term "nearest" was intended to convey geographic proximity. However, such a narrow reading of the word does not yield the desired result the Rule was intended to have, and cannot be read within the strict confines of the plain language set forth therein. The term "nearest" is broader in scope than mere geographical distance. It is the opinion of this Court that as used in Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a), "nearest" was intended to be analyzed temporally.