mandatory joinder rule in Tennessee

2018The Cedric Johnson majority observed that “even when there is no unfair ‘saving back’ of charges, the prosecutor’s awareness of offenses arising from the same criminal episode can trigger the mandatory joinder rule.” Id. (citing State v. Dominy, 67 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Tenn. Crim.

2015App. Nov. 30, 2009), aff’d in part, rev’d in part 342 S.W.3d 468 Tenn. 2011, a case in which a divided panel of this court held that “[d]espite the inconsistent holdings regarding the mandatory joinder rule, we conclude that the Luther E.

2001Rather than accepting the Advisory Commission’s reference to prohibiting “saving back” as the purpose of the mandatory joinder rule, the King court found the purpose to be expressed in the rule itself — that is, “to prevent a defendant from being subjected to separate trials for multiple offenses when the multiple offenses are based upon the same conduct or arise from the same criminal episode.” Id. at 308 .

2001Relying upon this court’s opinion in King v. State, 717 S.W.2d 306 (Tenn.Crim.App.1986), the trial court determined that the prosecutor’s “good faith did not preclude operation of the mandatory joinder rule.” Based upon these findings, the trial court concluded that the mandatory joinder provi sions of Rule 8(a) precluded prosecution of the new charges for rape of a spouse, and it dismissed the three-count indictment.