## Facts

- Robert Renner went to the apartment of Micki Reynolds, his former partner, to visit her child.
- Greg Shuttles was in the apartment and argued briefly with Renner.
- Renner and Reynolds spoke in the kitchen, where Renner urged reconciliation and warned Reynolds she was “playing with fire” by seeing Shuttles.
- Renner claimed he heard Shuttles load a firearm and believed Shuttles was typically armed and was intoxicated or “high.”
- Renner armed himself and headed toward the front door, which required passing through the living room where Shuttles was located.
- Renner testified Shuttles threatened to kill him while reaching into his rear pocket; Renner shot Shuttles, who died.
- A loaded firearm was later recovered from Shuttles’s rear pocket.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned whether Renner could have exited through a kitchen rear door; Renner responded the rear door was broken and unusable.
- In closing, the prosecutor stated there is no duty to retreat when attacked, but argued Renner was not actually being threatened or assaulted when he shot Shuttles.
- The trial court instructed that counsel’s statements are not evidence and that Tennessee law imposes no duty to retreat.
- Renner was convicted of first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor’s cross-examination and closing argument improperly suggested a legal duty to retreat, misleading the jury and depriving Renner of a fair trial.
2. Whether any prosecutorial misstatement regarding retreat required reversal despite correct jury instructions and the absence of a contemporaneous defense objection.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The Court held Renner received a fair trial.
- The Court concluded the prosecutor’s questioning about an alternate exit was permissible as factual probing relevant to reasonableness and perceived danger, not a statement of a legal duty.
- The Court acknowledged portions of the closing argument could confuse the retreat rule, but found no reversible error because the jury was correctly instructed on no duty to retreat and arguments of counsel were not evidence.
- The lack of a timely objection supported treating any error as waived or, at most, harmless.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee self-defense law imposes no duty to retreat when the defendant is without fault, is in a place the defendant has a right to be, and reasonably fears death or great bodily harm.
- Retreat is not an essential element of self-defense; the central inquiry is the defendant’s lawful presence, freedom from fault, and reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary.
- Prosecutorial comments that imply a retreat requirement may be improper, but reversal is not warranted when correct jury instructions dispel confusion and any error does not affect the verdict, particularly absent a contemporaneous objection.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that Tennessee’s self-defense doctrine does not require retreat for a defendant who is without fault, lawfully present, and acting under a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, and it upheld Renner’s conviction because any retreat-related prosecutorial misstatements were cured by proper jury instructions and were not shown to have affected the outcome.


State v. Renner, 912 S.W.2d 701 (Tenn. 1995)