State of Tennessee v. Larry D. Rothwell - Concurring

I concur in results only. My primary disagreement with the majority’s opinion is the reliance therein upon State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) and State v. Schiefelbein, 230 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) for the proposition that “Appellate review of hearsay issues is guided by the de novo standard of review.” Judge Witt wrote both of these scholarly opinions, and quite candidly, I am unable to conclude that the conclusion reached therein on the issue in question is not the most appropriate legal conclusion. Nevertheless, our supreme court cited Gilley in a footnote in Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854, 871 n.26 (Tenn. 2008) and declined to adopt the de novo standard of review. After noting that Judge Witt “advocates for review of . . . rulings on whether the proffered testimony was hearsay under a de novo standard of review” in his dissent in this court in Pylant v. State, No. M2005-02721-CCA-R3-PC, 2007 WL 1890178, at *12 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2007) (Witt, J., dissenting) (emphasis added), the supreme court, in effect, declined to accept what Judge Witt advocated as the definitive standard of review and concluded the footnote by stating,

Although this Court continues to believe that questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, we note that in this instance, the post-conviction court committed error under either standard of review.

Pylant, 263 S.W.3d at 871 n.26 (emphasis added)