COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Sort by

Order

State vs. Lee Bell Jr. W1999-01906-CCA-R3-CD	Madison	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/20/99
State vs. Percy Farris W1999-01914-CCA-R3-CD	Hardin	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/20/99
State vs. Steven White W1999-01920-CCA-R3-CD	Henry	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/20/99
State vs. Oscar Polk W1999-01935-CCA-R3-CD	Hardeman	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/20/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX Trial Court Judge: Gale B. Robinson	Davidson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/20/99
State vs. Alfred Middleton W1996-00022-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/17/99
State vs. Pedro Vallejo W1998-00500-CCA-R3-CD	Henry	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/17/99
State vs. Clay Dean W1999-01757-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/17/99
03C01-9902-CC-00082 03C01-9902-CC-00082 Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle	Cocke	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/17/99
State vs. Roy Morris W1999-01628-CCA-R3-CO Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.	Lake	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
State vs. Marcus Mabon W1999-01696-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
State vs. Carlos Curry W1999-01760-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
State vs. Vinton Maclin W1999-01845-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
03C01-9901-CR-00004 03C01-9901-CR-00004 Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler	Hamblen	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
03C01-9902-CC-00073 03C01-9902-CC-00073 Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.	Blount	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
03C01-9903-CR-00094 03C01-9903-CR-00094 Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen	Morgan	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
03C01-9903-CR-00100 03C01-9903-CR-00100 Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller	Sullivan	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
03C01-9904-CR-00136 03C01-9904-CR-00136 Trial Court Judge: W. Lee Asbury	Claiborne	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
03C01-9812-CR-00447 03C01-9812-CR-00447 Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen	Loudon	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Williamson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond	Wilson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Cheatham	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris	Hickman	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Davidson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/16/99
State vs. Frankie E. Casteel E1999-00076-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the first-degree murders of Richard Mason, Kenneth Griffith and Earl Smock in the Hamilton County Criminal Court, Douglas A. Myer, J., and the defendant appealed. The Court holds (1) that the trial court's failure to follow statutory procedures before admitting evidence that the defendant had committed prior bad acts was harmless error; (2) evidence that the defendant had threatened trespassers was properly admitted; (3) the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant; (4) failure to swear-in the jury prior to voir dire was at most harmless error where the jury was impaneled in another county and sworn in there; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to present alternative perpetrator evidence when that evidence was too far removed in time and place to connect it to the murders; (6) the trial court's failure to suppress evidence found on the defendant's property was proper because the evidence was seized during a search for the victims; (7) testimony about the contents of incriminating letters and newspaper articles was necessary to explain the defendant's attempt to destroy them; (8) the trial court properly allowed the state to cross examine the defendant about items seized from his home; but (9) the admission of five hours of an extremely prejudicial conversation between the defendant, his wife and his mistress in order to allow the jury to hear one adoptive admission was reversible error, especially when (10) the state relied on the unfairly prejudicial portion of the conversation when arguing its case to the jury in order to highlight the defendant's character. Reversed and remanded.	Hamilton	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/15/99