State of Tennessee v. Aaron McFarland - Concurring
The majority finds the defendant's suppression issue non meritorious under Fifth Amendment analysis. While I do not disagree with the analysis, I believe the factual scenario presented requires review under Sixth Amendment analysis. At both the suppression hearing and at trial, the interviewing officer testified that the defendant "had been arrested the night before by uniformed officers and was in juvenile court." The defendant was interviewed the following morning around 11:00 a.m., after the officer "checked him out of juvenile court" and transported him to the police department's homicide division. I can only assume from these facts that, at the time of the police questioning, the defendant had been charged with the homicide of Terrell Deon Bullard. If this assumption is correct, then adversarial proceedings had been initiated and the defendant's Sixth Amendment, rather than his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, had attached. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron McFarland
The defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he has presented as issues that the trial court should have suppressed his confession and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Alan Hurst
The defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of simple assault and the consecutive five-year sentences imposed for the aggravated assaults. The defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: 1) whether evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdicts, and 2) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for the two aggravated assault convictions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Henry Lee Berry
Henry Lee Berry appeals his Knox County conviction for second degree murder. Berry contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence two recorded 911 telephone calls and an order of protection entered against the appellant by the victim; and (3) the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial when evidence of a pending rape charge in Nashville was introduced before the jury. Additionally, the appellant urges adoption of DNA testing on decomposed bodies to positively establish the identity of the victim. Although we conclude that admission of the 911 telephone calls and the order of protection was error, the error was harmless. Moreover, finding no other reversible error of law, we affirm the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. James T. Cooper
The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, based on his failing a drug screen and his delinquency in paying court costs. We hold that the record is insufficient to support the trial court's finding of delinquent payments. However, the failing of the drug screen served as a sufficient basis for the revocation. We affirm the trial court's order. . |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donna Jean Sexton v. State of Tennessee
|
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Lester Douglas Giles
|
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. John Wayne Gray
|
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael F. Maraschiello
|
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Buford vs. State
|
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Edward T. Flye
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Todd vs. State
|
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Todd vs. State
The Defendant appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Lavern Davis vs. State
|
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kevin Padgett
|
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Daniel Joe James
|
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Selina Harrelson
|
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Bobby Perkins
|
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Robin Vanhoose
|
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Carl Couch
|
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Harris vs. State
|
Unicoi | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Daniel Christian Russell
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael A. Rhodes vs. State
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Lawrence Sherrill
|
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. William Blaine Campbell
|
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals |