The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has reversed the domestic assault conviction of Kortney Dalon Ball, a decision that could have significant implications for how lesser-included offenses are charged in future cases. The court found that the trial court made an error in instructing the jury that domestic assault was a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. This ruling affects Ball, who was retried after a hung jury in his first trial, and it raises questions about the legal definitions and procedures surrounding domestic violence cases in Tennessee.
The case stems from an incident on August 9, 2020, involving Ball and his girlfriend, Lee’a Garnett. Following the incident, Ball was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in 2021 for aggravated assault by strangulation. During his first trial in 2024, the jury acquitted him of aggravated assault but could not reach a unanimous verdict on the domestic assault charge, leading to a mistrial. In 2025, Ball was retried and convicted of domestic assault. He appealed the conviction, leading to the recent ruling.
The court's opinion, delivered by Judge Camille R. McMullen, highlighted several key issues. Ball argued that his conviction should be vacated because the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury that domestic assault was a lesser-included offense of the indicted aggravated assault charge. The State of Tennessee conceded this point, agreeing that domestic assault does not meet the criteria to be considered a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault.
In its ruling, the court stated, "Because domestic assault is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault, the indictment is not sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for domestic assault." The court emphasized that the additional element required for domestic assault, namely the existence of a domestic relationship, distinguishes it from aggravated assault, thus necessitating a separate indictment for such a charge.
Judge McMullen was joined by Judges Jill Bartee Ayers and Tom Greenholtz in the decision. The court reversed Ball's conviction and vacated the judgment, remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
This ruling could have broader implications for how domestic violence cases are prosecuted in Tennessee. It underscores the importance of proper jury instructions and the necessity for clear legal definitions regarding assault charges. The decision may influence future cases where defendants argue that they were not properly notified of the charges against them, potentially leading to more stringent requirements for prosecutors in similar situations.
Moving forward, Ball's case may not be over. The court's decision allows for the possibility of a new trial on a different charge, such as simple assault, which the State may pursue. However, it remains to be seen if the State will seek to retry Ball or if the case will be dismissed altogether. Legal experts are watching closely, as this ruling could set a precedent for how lesser-included offenses are treated in Tennessee courts.
In conclusion, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has taken a significant step in addressing the complexities of domestic violence charges, ensuring that defendants are afforded their rights to fair notice and due process. The outcome of this case will likely resonate within the legal community and influence future domestic assault prosecutions in the state.