State of Tennessee v. Aaron Michael King

I join in the majority in concluding that the evidence is sufficient to support the
Defendant’s kidnapping convictions and that the trial court did not err in denying the
motion for a mistrial. However, I part ways with the majority’s analysis and conclusion
regarding the court’s denial of a new trial based upon defense counsel’s personal,
concurrent conflict of interests. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the record fails
to support a conclusion that the Defendant was assured his constitutional right to a fair trial
and that due process requires that he receive a new trial. See U.S. Const. amends. VI
(guaranteeing a criminal defendant’s right to counsel), XIV, §1 (no State shall “deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”); Tenn. Const. art. 1,
§§ 6 (guaranteeing a criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial), 9 (rights of a criminal
defendant); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-85 (1984) (stating that the right
to counsel exists to protect a criminal defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial, which
is rooted in the Due Process Clause); see also Smith v. State, 357 S.W.3d 322 , 336 (Tenn.
2011).