Background
On September 28, 2021, Teresa Kay Nolan followed a vehicle driven by 17-year-old C.B. after one of his passengers made a rude gesture at her. When C.B. pulled over to see why he was being followed, Nolan pulled alongside him and pointed a loaded 9mm handgun directly at C.B. and his two teenage passengers (ages 16 and 17), holding the weapon with both hands. C.B. immediately fled; Nolan pursued him through the neighborhood, crossing double yellow lines. Both made 9-1-1 calls reporting the incident. A police officer recovered a loaded Ruger 9mm firearm from Nolan’s holster.
Nolan testified she was following C.B.’s vehicle to report dangerous driving to police and that she reached for her gun when C.B.’s car door opened and hit her mirror because she feared for her safety. C.B. and his passengers testified they were terrified and feared for their lives when Nolan pointed the gun at them. The jury found her guilty of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, resulting in a four-year concurrent sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the convictions, finding ample evidence that Nolan intentionally caused the victims to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury through display of a loaded deadly weapon. The court rejected Nolan’s challenge to witness credibility, holding that jury credibility determinations are final and not subject to appellate reweighting. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational jury could find Nolan guilty of aggravated assault.
On Nolan’s request for a self-defense jury instruction, the court held it was properly denied. Tennessee law requires proof of a reasonable belief—founded on reasonable grounds—of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Nolan’s fear triggered by C.B. opening his car door fell short of this standard. There was no evidence C.B. or his passengers had weapons or posed any objective danger. Critically, Nolan never actually deployed the firearm in self-defense. A car door opening does not constitute imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury as a matter of law.
The court also upheld admission of Nolan’s 2016 conviction for attempted impersonation of a licensed professional for impeachment purposes under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609. Though the trial court failed to explicitly articulate its balancing analysis, independent review confirmed the prior conviction’s high probative value for credibility (involving dishonesty) and the low risk of unfair prejudice (substantial dissimilarity to the assault charge). The court remanded for corrected judgment on count 2, reflecting the reclassification to reckless endangerment with a concurrent one-year sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Displaying a loaded firearm at another person constitutes aggravated assault if the victim reasonably fears imminent bodily injury, regardless of physical contact or injury
- Self-defense does not apply to minor threats such as an accidental car door contact; defendant must show reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury
- Crimes involving dishonesty or false statement are highly probative for impeaching witness credibility under TRE 609, especially when dissimilar to the charged offense
- Jury determinations of witness credibility are final on appeal and not subject to reweighting
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that aggravated assault by deadly weapon does not require physical injury or actual contact. The display of a loaded firearm combined with the victim’s reasonable fear satisfies the statutory elements. For defense counsel, it signals that self-defense claims have a high evidentiary bar—unexpected or minor contact does not trigger justified use of force. The case reinforces that trial courts have discretion in how they present impeachment analysis under TRE 609, and crimes of dishonesty carry special weight for credibility, particularly when unrelated to the charged offense.
The decision will be instructive for prosecutors charging deadly weapon cases and for defense counsel evaluating viability of self-defense at trial. It also provides practical guidance on TRE 609 impeachment scope, particularly regarding white-collar or dishonesty convictions. The remand for sentencing correction underscores that charging and sentencing must track the actual conviction count.