STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAULINE VIRGINIA SPALDING AND CHARLES MARTIN JOHNSON - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAULINE VIRGINIA SPALDING AND CHARLES MARTIN JOHNSON

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 10, 2026

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Timothy Carter, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Pauline Virginia Spalding.

Attorneys 2: Dustin Faeder, Brentwood, Tennessee (on appeal), and Ben Powers, Franklin, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Charles Martin Johnson.

Attorneys 3: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Nicholas S. Bolduc, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Amy Hunter and Luis Casas, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): USMAN

Defendants Pauline Virginia Spalding and Charles Martin Johnson were jointly indicted for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and impersonating a police officer. The Defendants were tried together by a jury, and the jury convicted both Defendants as charged. The trial court sentenced Ms. Spalding to fifteen years for the kidnapping conviction, three years for the assault conviction, and eleven months, twenty- nine days for the impersonation conviction. The trial court ordered Ms. Spalding’s sentences to be served concurrently, for an effective term of incarceration of fifteen years. The trial court sentenced Mr. Johnson to seventeen years for the kidnapping conviction, four years for the assault conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the impersonation conviction. The trial court ordered Mr. Johnson’s sentences to be served concurrently, for an effective term of incarceration of seventeen years. In this consolidated direct appeal, Mr. Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and also contends that his dual convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault violate double jeopardy. Ms. Spalding contends that the trial court erred in denying the admission of certain evidence; that purported dishonesty from one of the jurors during voir dire entitles her to a new trial; and that the trial court erred in sentencing her. We affirm.

Attachments: