State of Tennessee v. Edward Joseph Benesch, II

The Defendant, Edward Joseph Benesch II, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of aggravated child neglect and voluntary manslaughter, for which the trial court sentenced him to an effective term of eighteen years’ incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following allegations of error: (1) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police after he first requested an attorney and that request did not need clarification in the Defendant’s opinion; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions because he did not intentionally neglect the victim and because the element of adequate provocation was absent; (3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted photographs of the victim taken at the crime scene and during the victim’s autopsy given their gruesome nature; (4) that trial court erred by allowing a paramedic to testify as an expert about the “significance of the force” that caused the victim’s injuries; (5) that it was improper for the trial court to allow two witnesses, Shannon Edmonson and Shara Tisdale, to testify about the Defendant’s alleged drug usage and drugs being found in his home; (6) that the trial court should not have allowed testimony from the Defendant’s next-door neighbor that bore “no indicia of reliability and was completely unverifiable”; (7) that the trial court’s refusal to allow the Defendant’s “mitigation expert” to testify regarding how the Defendant told her he fell on the victim violated the Defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense; and (8) that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to play, as a prior inconsistent statement, the video recording of Judith Lane’s interview with law enforcement. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we must conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter because the Defendant was not adequately provoked by the eighteen-month-old victim, and therefore, that conviction is reversed and vacated. However, because the proof is sufficient to support the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide, we remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a reckless homicide conviction and imposition of a consecutive, four-year sentence for that conviction. The Defendant’s remaining issues do not entitle him to relief, and his conviction for aggravated child neglect is affirmed. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed in part and reversed in part.