Opinion FlashJuly 17, 2002
Volume 8 Number 122
Following this index are summaries of each case, including its name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion.
TBA members can get the full-text versions of these opinions three ways detailed below. All methods require a TBA username and password. If you have forgotten your password, you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi . If you are a TBA member, but do not have a username and password, you can receive one online at http://www.tba.org/signup.mgi. Here's how you can obtain full-text version.
Howard H. Vogel
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICKY LEE HALL Court:TCCA Attorneys: Dale M.Quillen, Ken D. Quillen, and Michael Flanagan, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ricky Lee Hall. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Christine M. Lapps, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III, District Attorney General; and David G. Vorhaus, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WILLIAMS First Paragraph: The defendant contests the trial court's revocation of his probation, more specifically its failure to dismiss the probation revocation warrant. We conclude the trial court did not err in not dismissing the warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court with instructions to enter a formal order revoking probation. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/hallrl.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARYL KEITH HOLTON Court:TCCA Attorneys: John E. Appman, Jamestown, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal), and Donna Hargrove, A. Jackson Dearing, III, and Larry F. Wallace, Jr., Fayetteville, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Daryl Keith Holton. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Mark E. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General; W. Michael McCown, District Attorney General; and Weakley E. Barnard, Robert G. Crigler, and Ann L. Filer, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: MCGEE OGLE First Paragraph: The appellant, Daryl Keith Holton, was convicted by a jury in the Bedford County Circuit Court of four counts of first degree premeditated murder. The same jury imposed a sentence of death for each count of murder. The appellant now appeals both his convictions and sentences, presenting the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (2) whether the statute setting forth the defense of insanity in Tennessee is violative of the United States Constitution in the context of a prosecution for first degree premeditated murder; (3) whether under the United States Constitution inadequate acoustics in the courtroom during his trial denied the appellant his right to a fair trial; (4) whether under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions the imposition of a sentence of death violates a criminal defendant's fundamental right to life; (5) whether the evidence adduced during the guilt/innocence and sentencing phases of the appellant's trial supports the jury's imposition of sentences of death; and (6) whether the appellant's sentences of death are comparatively disproportionate. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/holtondk.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WADE P. TUCKER Court:TCCA Attorneys: Robert S. Peters, Winchester, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Wade P. Tucker. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Helena Walton Yarbrough, Assistant Attorney General; J. Michael Taylor, District Attorney General; and Steve Blount, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WITT First Paragraph: The defendant, Wade P. Tucker, appeals from his Franklin County Circuit Court convictions of especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. These convictions resulted from a bench trial in which the facts were stipulated by the defendant and the state. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the conviction of especially aggravated robbery; however, we hold that the conviction of aggravated burglary is infirm because the defendant, as an owner of the property, effectively consented to his entry into the house where the crime took place. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the conviction of aggravated burglary but affirm the conviction of especially aggravated robbery. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/tuckerwadep.wpd
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL!
GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!
JOIN THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION!
SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!
UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT!
But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi
© Copyright 2002 Tennessee Bar Association