Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Arthur McKinnie

TENNCRIMAPPFebruary 21, 2019No. W2018-00439-CCA-R3-CD
Defendant WinArthur McKinnie

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal from jury trial conviction; appellate affirmance

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Criminal defendant Arthur McKinnie appealed his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting challenges to sufficiency of evidence and sentencing discretion.

Excerpt

The Defendant, Arthur McKinnie, was indicted for attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony aggravated assault, a Class C felony employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony and tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, -13-102, -13-103, -13-202, -16-503, -17-1324. The Defendant proceeded to a jury trial. The trial court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the tampering with evidence charge. The jury convicted the Defendant of the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony, and the charged offenses of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, -13-211. The jury acquitted the Defendant of the employment of a firearm charge. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter (2) the trial court abused its discretion in setting the length of his sentences and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing partial consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved Arthur McKinnie, who was charged with serious violent crimes including attempted murder, aggravated assault, and using a firearm during a dangerous crime. McKinnie went to trial and was convicted of lesser charges: attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment. He then appealed his conviction to a higher court. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court upheld McKinnie's conviction. They rejected his arguments that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him and that his sentence was unfair. The court found that the trial court had made the right decisions both in finding him guilty and in determining his punishment. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this appears to be primarily a criminal case rather than a traditional employment law dispute, it serves as an important reminder that workplace violence has serious legal consequences. Workers should understand that any violent behavior at work can result in both criminal charges and employment termination. This case demonstrates that courts take workplace violence seriously and will uphold convictions when the evidence supports them. All employees have the right to a safe workplace free from violence and threats.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.