Conviction Affirmed For Encouraging Suicide

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed a negligent homicide conviction in a case of first impression

In this case of first impression, we consider whether a defendant can be convicted of criminally negligent homicide when he incites, encourages or coerces another person to commit suicide and whether the State of Tennessee has territorial jurisdiction over a defendant when he affirmatively reaches out to Tennessee via electronic means. A Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Hayden Jennings Berkebile, of criminally negligent homicide after the victim, Grace Anne Sparks, shot and killed herself for Defendant’s sexual pleasure while on a video call with Defendant. Defendant argues on appeal that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because (a) the State did not prove that Defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of the victim’s death, and (b) the negligent homicide statute as construed here violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the State did not establish territorial jurisdiction over Defendant because he was in Indiana at the time of the victim’s death and only communicated with her electronically; (3) the trial court erred in admitting an alleged hearsay statement by the investigator; (4) the trial court erred in allowing the jury to utilize a transcript of Defendant’s interrogation that contained inaccurate transcriptions; (5) cumulative error requires a new trial; and (6) the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion because it relied on evidence not in the record. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, the record, and the relevant law, we affirm in all respects.

Facts

Defendant and the victim met on Omegle around 2013. At the time, Defendant was between twenty and twenty-one years old and the victim was between thirteen and fourteen years old. The two had a mostly virtual on-again, off-again relationship, spanning almost six years. Defendant was married when he and the victim began their relationship, but he told the victim he was not married. The victim stopped talking to him once she discovered he was married, but they later rekindled their relationship.

Their relationship, however, was a more dark, villianous tale than even their age gap at their meeting might suggest. Defendant and the victim initially bonded over their mutual suicidal ideations, but their relationship was primarily sexual, marked especially by Defendant’s control over and manipulation of the victim. Defendant and the victim likely engaged in virtual sexual activity at some point while the victim was underage. Defendant and the victim were both in other romantic relationships during their relationship with each other: Defendant was married, and the victim was engaged or dating. Neither, however, considered themselves to be monogamous, and their respective romantic partners apparently approved of their relationship with each other up to just before the victim’s death.

They communicated primarily via Facebook Messenger in the months leading up to the victim’s death, but also via video call, text messaging, Snapchat, phone calls, and in person when the victim went to Indiana one time to visit Defendant in the summer of 2019. Central to this case is their engagement in “suicide play,” where the victim would pantomime committing suicide for Defendant’s sexual pleasure.

The communications leading up to the victim’s death are set out in detail.

We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for criminally negligent homicide where the defendant encourages or coerces a victim to commit suicide and that person commits suicide. We further hold that electronic communications are “other means proceeding directly from the person” for the purpose of establishing territorial jurisdiction.

LLE R. MCMULLEN, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In this case, the State relied exclusively upon online communications sent between the Defendant, who resided in Indiana, and the suicide decedent, who resided in Tennessee, to establish a conviction of criminally negligent homicide. In my view, the State failed to establish the essential elements of territorial jurisdiction and proximate cause. No matter how “dark” or “diabolical” the online communications leading up to the decedent’s death may have been, there is simply no law in Tennessee making it a crime to verbally persuade or coerce someone to commit suicide. Because Tennessee has yet to criminalize incitement, inducement, or encouragement to commit suicide, words alone cannot serve as the basis for a criminal conviction. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.

10 News covered the crime. (Mike Frisch)