The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has granted an extraordinary appeal allowing a jury trial to determine the competency of Daekwon Kaderius Dodd. This decision affects Dodd, who faces serious charges, including second-degree murder, and raises important questions about the legal standards for competency in criminal cases.
The court's ruling comes after the State of Tennessee challenged a lower court's decision that permitted Dodd to request a jury trial on his competency to stand trial. The case has been ongoing since 2022, and Dodd's ability to assist in his defense is in question due to a traumatic brain injury he suffered in an accident. This ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for how competency hearings may be conducted in Tennessee.
Background
Daekwon Kaderius Dodd is the defendant in this case, indicted for second-degree murder and aggravated assault in connection with the shooting death of Tatina Buddington in January 2022. Buddington was the mother of Dodd's child. Dodd suffered a traumatic brain injury after falling from a third-story balcony at a rental cabin where the incident occurred.
In August 2023, Dodd filed a demand for a jury trial regarding his competency to stand trial. He argued that his brain injury caused significant memory loss and cognitive impairment, which hindered his ability to assist his legal counsel. The defense emphasized that the forensic evidence related to the shooting made his memory issues particularly relevant to the competency evaluation.
The case reached the Court of Criminal Appeals after the trial court ruled in favor of Dodd's request for a jury trial on November 19, 2025. The State of Tennessee subsequently filed an application for extraordinary appeal, asserting that the trial court's decision deviated from standard judicial procedures and could lead to a loss of rights that could not be recovered later.
The Ruling
The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State's application for extraordinary review under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. The judges involved in the ruling were Tom Greenholtz, Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., and Steven W. Sword. The court stated, "The State has made a sufficient showing that immediate review is warranted." However, the court did not make a determination on the ultimate merits of the statutory question regarding whether a jury trial on competency is permitted under Tennessee law.
The court's ruling highlighted that the trial court's decision represented a significant departure from established legal procedures, particularly regarding who is authorized to determine a defendant's competency. The court emphasized that if the statute does not permit a jury to decide competency, proceeding with a jury trial would fundamentally alter the nature of the competency hearing.
Impact
This ruling has far-reaching implications for the legal landscape in Tennessee. If the appellate court ultimately decides that a jury trial on competency is permissible, it could set a precedent that allows defendants greater rights in determining their fitness to stand trial. This case also underscores the importance of statutory interpretation in legal proceedings, particularly in light of changes to laws over time.
The decision could affect not only Dodd's case but also future cases where defendants claim incompetency due to mental health issues or cognitive impairments. The ruling may lead to more jury trials on competency issues, which could reshape how courts handle similar cases in the future.
What's Next
The trial court proceedings are currently stayed pending the appellate court's review. The trial court clerk is required to transmit the record on appeal, and both parties will file briefs as part of the appellate process. The outcome of this extraordinary appeal could potentially be appealed further, depending on the appellate court's final decision.