STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HARLAN V. FERGUSON, ALIAS HARLEY T. MARTIN - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Azya Thornton on May 28, 2025

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Eric Lutton, District Public Defender; Jonathan Harwell (on appeal and at coram nobis hearing), Halle Hammond (on appeal), Christy Murray (at trial and coram nobis hearing), and Kathryn Fraser and Carter Pack (at trial), Assistant District Public Defenders, for the appellant, Harlan V. Ferguson, alias Harley T. Martin.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Heather Good, Joe Welker, and Greg Eshbaugh, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WILSON

A Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Harlan V. Ferguson, alias Harley T. Martin, of two counts of vehicular homicide, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, and failure to drive within a single lane of traffic. The trial court merged the vehicular homicide and DUI convictions into one vehicular homicide conviction and imposed an effective ten-year sentence with one year to be served in confinement followed by probation. While Defendant’s direct appeal was pending in this court, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, in which he alleged that newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment. The trial court denied the petition, and this court consolidated Defendant’s direct appeal of his convictions and his appeal from the denial of coram nobis relief. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement; (2) the State’s failure to establish the chain of custody of Defendant’s blood samples; (3) the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss due to the destruction of evidence; (4) the trial court’s admission of lay testimony regarding the cause of the victim’s injuries; (5) the trial court’s admission of Defendant’s medical records; (6) the trial court’s exclusion of defense evidence; (7) the trial court’s failure to issue a missing witness instruction; (8) the State’s comments during closing arguments; (9) the State’s failure to disclose evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (10) the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: