State of Tennessee v. Andrew Neal Davis - Concurring

I concur in the results reached by the lead opinion but write separately to amplify some of my concerns. The prosecution has placed the conviction for aggravated child abuse of a child under the age of six in peril through mistakes, inadvertence, or neglect. There exists no evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the District Attorney General’s office. I hasten to add that this District Attorney General’s office is not an abuser of the power or processes used to prosecute crimes in its jurisdiction. Although I have voted to affirm this conviction, I feel I must add a word of warning to others who may wish to rely upon my decision. At first glance, the practice of amending an indictment without the defendant’s consent at such a late date is looked upon with disfavor. The practice suggests that someone was inattentive to the process and comes dangerously close to violating principles of fundamental fairness. It is akin to changing the rules in the middle of the game, a gamewhich is played by professionals in which inches determine the winner and loser. This competent defense counsel did not appear shaken or surprised by the State’s amendment. Indeed, I have determined trial counsel’s trial strategy was not changed in the least. That is the main reason I have chosen to affirm this conviction. However, I am mindful of the time trial counsel takes in explaining to a client what has just transpired in court. Imagine explaining to a client that after being put to trial once on what was a Class B felony, the client is now facing a Class A felony with a potential for greater punishment. This could have taken away valuable time which counsel could have used to ready for the trial which was about to begin moments later. The impact could have been great upon a trial counsel that was not as prepared or strong as the one in this case.