Background
John Ernest Rediker stands charged with premeditated first-degree murder in Hickman County Circuit Court. Before trial, Rediker requested special jury instructions on two lesser included offenses—second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter—and sought to control the order in which the jury must consider proof on each charge. The trial court denied his request and announced it would instead follow Tennessee’s Pattern Jury Instructions on these subjects.
Rediker then filed a motion in trial court seeking permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the jury instruction ruling. The trial court granted permission and certified two issues for appellate review: whether due process requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of “heat of passion” for voluntary manslaughter, and whether the jury must be allowed to consider voluntary manslaughter before second-degree murder. The trial court found all three interlocutory appeal factors satisfied and believed review was necessary for clarity.
The Court’s Holding
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals denied Rediker’s application for interlocutory appeal. The court emphasized that interlocutory appeals are “disfavored” in criminal cases and require permission from both the trial court and the appellate court. Although the trial court granted permission, the appellate court found none of the statutory factors warranting such review were actually present.
The court held that Rediker’s rights would not be lost by waiting for direct appeal: if acquitted, the issue becomes moot; if convicted, he may appeal as of right and raise jury instruction issues on direct appeal. The court noted jury instruction challenges are routinely raised in that context. Approving the interlocutory appeal would only delay prosecution without net benefit, since the pattern jury instructions have been consistently approved by Tennessee appellate courts as constitutionally sound. Rediker failed to demonstrate the instructions are erroneous and relied on non-controlling dicta and a federal dissent rather than establishing conflict among Tennessee courts.
Key Takeaways
- Interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are disfavored and require both trial and appellate court approval under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.
- Jury instruction challenges—even novel constitutional theories—may be addressed on direct appeal and do not warrant interlocutory review when no irreparable harm or litigation savings result.
- Approved pattern jury instructions on lesser-included offenses do not become subject to immediate appellate review merely because a defendant disputes their constitutionality.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that defendants seeking to change established jury instruction practice must do so through direct appeal after conviction, not through the more limited interlocutory appeal process. While Rediker invoked due process and the defense right to present a case, the court protected finality and judicial efficiency by disfavoring challenges to settled patterns of jury instructions before trial concludes.
For trial courts and prosecutors, the ruling confirms that Tennessee’s Pattern Jury Instructions on murder and lesser-included offenses remain constitutionally adequate and need not be supplemented or reordered based on pretrial motions, absent demonstrated legal error that conflicts with appellate precedent.