APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, John W. Gilliam, appeals as of right his conviction and consecutive sentence for one count of the unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon. He argues that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred when it ordered his sentence for that crime consecutive to another sentence for rape. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no merit to the Appellant’s contentions and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s
judgment.

The State of Tennessee appeals as of right the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of the Appellees’ indictments for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court found that the Appellees’ protection against former jeopardy had been violated in that the Appellees had already been punished for their crimes by the State’s seizure of two vehicles used in the drug sale. The State argues on appeal that the civil forfeiture of the Appellees’ vehicles does not amount to punishment pursuant to the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and the Tennessee Constitutions. We agree and reverse the trial court.

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues in this case. I do not believe that the prosecutor's remarks concerning the appellant's intention to plead guilty prejudiced him or deprived him of a fair trial. As pointed out by the majority, Judge v. State1 provides five factors to be considered in assessing the prejudicial effect of improper argument. The five factors are:

1. The conduct complained of viewed in context and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The curative measures undertaken by the court and the prosecution.
3. The intent of the prosecutor in making the improper statement.
4. The cumulative effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record.
5. The relative strength or weakness of the case.