State of Tennessee v. Bradley Ferrell - Dissenting

The majority in this case concludes that defendant is not entitled to relief based on the trial court’s rulings regarding the defendant’s proposed expert, Dr. Stephen Adams. As the majority states, the trial court ruled that Dr. Adams was qualified to give expert testimony regarding the defendant’s brain injuries; however, in ruling that Dr. Adams was not qualified as a psychiatric expert, the trial court stated that “[t]he court does not prefer to hear testimony regarding capacity on a non-specific intent crime.” In my view, this ruling prevented the Dr. Adams from presenting any testimony that the defendant lacked the capacity to form the requisite mental state for the offense with which he was charged. As a result, the defendant was prevented from presenting the key element of his defense, and the ruling clearly prejudiced the defendant. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.