Tennessee Appeals Court hears burglary case against William Sutton involving Walmart ban

In a pivotal court session on April 23, 2025, the Tennessee Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case of State of Tennessee v. William C. Sutton, focusing on the admissibility of evidence that could significantly impact the outcome of the appeal.

William Sutton, represented by attorney Jackson Fenner, is contesting his burglary conviction, arguing that a key piece of evidence—a trespass notice from Walmart—was improperly admitted during his trial. Fenner contended that the notice, which indicated Sutton was banned from the store for life, constituted hearsay because it was not authored by the witness who testified about it. He emphasized that without this document, the state lacks sufficient evidence to prove that Sutton entered Walmart without consent, which is central to the burglary charge.

On the opposing side, Assistant Attorney General Johnny Sirsant defended the trial court's decision to allow the notice as evidence. He argued that Sutton's signature on the document and the testimony of a witness who observed him signing it validated its authenticity. Sirsant maintained that the evidence clearly established Sutton's awareness of his ban from Walmart, bolstered by video footage showing him taking items from the store without payment.

The judges, including Robert Wedemeyer, Camille R. McMullen, and D. Michael Sweeney, acknowledged the complexity of the hearsay issue and the implications it holds for the case. They indicated that they would deliberate on the arguments presented and issue a ruling in due course.

This case highlights critical questions about the standards of evidence in criminal proceedings and the rights of defendants, particularly regarding the admissibility of documents that may influence jury decisions. The outcome could set important precedents for future cases involving similar evidentiary challenges in Tennessee.