The Tennessee Supreme Court has granted a new trial in a Memphis case in which a man was convicted of rape of a child.
In 2012, Frederick Herron was sentenced to 25 years in prison for the rape of his ex-wife’s younger sister. The victim, who said she was between the ages of 8 and 12 when the rapes occurred, lived with her sister and the defendant at the time they were still married.
The abuse was first reported to law enforcement in late 2010, when the victim was about to turn 16. At trial, the victim testified that the defendant had raped her multiple times over several years, each time coming into her room at night. In addition to observing the victim’s live testimony in the courtroom, the trial court also allowed the jury to watch a video recording of her speaking to an investigator about the assaults. The jury viewed this video recording once during trial and again during its deliberations.
Also at trial, the judge ruled that if Mr. Herron testified on his own behalf, the prosecution would be allowed to ask him generally if he had ever been previously arrested or convicted of a crime. The defendant did not testify and was convicted of rape of a child.
Mr. Herron appealed the jury’s verdict, raising seven issues, including the trial court’s decision to allow the jury to see the video, and the court’s ruling to allow the State to ask the defendant about prior arrests and convictions should he choose to testify. The State conceded on appeal that the trial court’s rulings about the video and the defendant’s testimony were erroneous. The State argued, however, that these errors did not harm the defendant. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State and determined that, although the trial court erred in two respects, the errors were neither individually nor cumulatively prejudicial to the defendant.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the case. The Court approved the portion of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, but concluded that, taken together, the two errors were prejudicial and entitled the defendant to a new trial.
The Court employed a legal principle called the “cumulative error doctrine,” which represents the idea that multiple errors, while individually harmless, when combined, create a cumulative effect that is prejudicial to the defendant. The Court declined to consider the individual impact of the errors that occurred during Mr. Herron’s trial because it determined that in this case, the combined effect of the errors warrants a new trial for the defendant.
Read the opinion in State of Tennessee v. Frederick Herron, authored by Justice Cornelia A. Clark.