State of Tennessee vs. George Langford - Concurring
We granted this appeal to decide whether: (1) the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of aggravated burglary and felony murder committed during the perpetration of an aggravated burglary; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to criminal trespass. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant and that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on criminal trespass. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the defendant’s convictions is affirmed. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Ray L. Taylor - Concurring
We granted this appeal to decide whether a defendant’s credibility may be impeached by reference to a prior conviction for a “felony involving dishonesty.” We hold that the trial court erred in ruling that the State could impeach the defendant by asking him whether he had been convicted of any “felonies involving dishonesty.” We hold, however, that the error was harmless.1 |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Sanjurjo et al vs. Woods
|
Supreme Court | ||
Marcus vs. Marcus
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Rogers
|
Supreme Court | ||
Brooks vs. Carter
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Edward Smith
In this automatic appeal,1 the defendant, Leonard Edward Smith, raises numerous challenges to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals which affirmed his sentence of death for the 1984 murder of Novella Webb. After carefully examining the entire record and the law, including the thorough opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals and the briefs of the defendant and the State, this Court entered an Order limiting review at oral argument to the following three issues:2 (1) Whether the trial court was correct in allowing the defendant to control the presentation of mitigating evidence and to waive closing argument against counsel’s advice; (2) Whether the admittance of victim impact testimony and argument at the sentencing hearing constituted reversible error; (3) Whether the sentence of death is arbitrary or disproportionate in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(A)-(D) (1997 Repl.). |
Hamblen | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Leonard Smith
|
Hamblen | Supreme Court | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Galmore
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
In the matter of: Bianca Arneshe Askew, Dorothy Lewis v. Julie Donoho
In this child custody case involving Bianca Arneshe Askew, now age eight years and nine months, we consider the competing claims between the child’s natural mother, Julie Donoho, and Dorothy Lewis, who presently has physical custody of the child. The lower courts found that a prior court order had granted custody to Ms. Lewis and that Ms. Donoho had failed to satisfy her burden of proving that custody should be restored to her. Because we find that Ms. Donoho’s constitutional right as a parent has been abridged, due to the absence of a showing of unfitness or of substantial harm, we reverse the decisions of the lower courts. |
Fayette | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Bryant Dewayne Millen
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Bryant Dewayne Millen
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Bryant Dewayne Millen
|
Supreme Court | ||
O2-S-01-9710-CR-00085
|
Supreme Court | ||
Eyring vs. Fort Sanders Parkwest et al
|
Supreme Court | ||
Parent vs. State
|
Supreme Court | ||
Holt vs. Lewis
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
|
Wayne | Supreme Court | |
King vs. State
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Small
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Harris
|
Henry | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring
The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a). |
Henry | Supreme Court | |
Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Crutcher
|
Supreme Court |
