STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EMANUEL KIDEGA SAMSON - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EMANUEL KIDEGA SAMSON

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on May 3, 2023

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Manuel B. Russ (at motion for new trial and on appeal); and Jennifer Thompson; and Joseph Duffy Cassidy (at trial), for the appellant, Emanuel Kidega Samson.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Richard D. Douglas, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; Roger Moore, Deputy District Attorney General; and Megan King and Amy Hunter, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): AYERS

Defendant, Emanuel Kidega Samson, was convicted of three counts of civil rights intimidation, one count of first-degree premeditated murder, seven counts of attempted first-degree murder, seven counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, twenty-four counts of aggravated assault, and one count of reckless endangerment. He received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for his firstdegree murder conviction. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of 281 years for the remaining convictions to be served consecutively to the life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court improperly excluded expert testimony as to his mental health; that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for civil rights intimidation, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and first-degree premeditated murder; that his conviction for civil rights intimidation in Count 3 of the indictment and his convictions for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony violated double jeopardy; that the State failed to make an election of offenses as to his convictions for civil rights intimidation; that the trial court erred by admitting a note he wrote; that the trial court erred by admitting a portion of the recordings of his jail phone calls; that the trial court incorrectly charged the jury that his failure to remember the facts of the offenses was not a defense; and that his sentence was improper. Following our review of the entire record, oral argument, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: