## Facts

- Freddie Lee Houston, a long-serving Chattanooga police officer and captain assigned to city court duties, argued with a city court administrator outside the Chattanooga City Court courtrooms on August 26, 1992.
- The dispute arose from an administrative matter; the administrator declined to discuss it at that time.
- Houston repeatedly insulted the administrator loudly, followed him as he tried to disengage, and demanded he return and “stand up like a man.”
- In the final encounter, Houston confronted the administrator at close range; after the administrator cursed back, Houston struck him in the face.
- The punch broke the administrator’s jaw and two teeth, requiring surgery (including insertion of a steel plate) and resulting in over $14,000 in medical expenses.
- Houston was initially charged by warrant with aggravated assault; after a preliminary hearing and grand jury action, he was indicted for Class A misdemeanor assault under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101.
- Houston applied for statutory pretrial diversion; the district attorney general acknowledged favorable work and social history but denied diversion, citing Houston’s position of public trust, the victim’s court role, the seriousness of injuries, and the offense circumstances (including pursuit of a retreating victim while armed with a service firearm).

## Issues

1. Whether the district attorney general abused prosecutorial discretion in denying Houston pretrial diversion, such that the trial court should have reversed the denial on certiorari review.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment upholding the prosecutor’s denial of pretrial diversion.
- The court held the denial was supported by substantial evidence and rested on permissible considerations, so no abuse of discretion was shown.
- The court accepted the prosecutor’s weighing of Houston’s favorable history against the seriousness and circumstances of the offense and the public-interest considerations.

## Legal Principles

- Pretrial diversion decisions are committed to the district attorney general’s discretion; the prosecutor must consider amenability to correction and whether diversion serves the ends of justice and the public interest.
- Relevant diversion factors include the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s criminal record, social history, physical and mental condition, and prior law-abiding behavior.
- Judicial review of a diversion denial is narrow and deferential; the prosecutor’s decision is presumed correct, and the defendant bears the burden to show abuse of discretion.
- An abuse of discretion is shown only if the denial is unsupported by any substantial evidence or is based on improper considerations.
- A defendant’s breach of public trust or official position may be treated as a significant factor weighing against diversion, particularly where the offense affects confidence in public institutions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the prosecutor’s denial of pretrial diversion because the record supported reliance on the serious injuries and courthouse setting, Houston’s status as an armed police captain, and deterrence and public-confidence concerns, notwithstanding Houston’s strong work history and community support.


State v. Houston, 900 S.W.2d 712 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)