STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEROME SIDNEY BARRETT - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 18, 2012

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Patrick G. Frogge (on appeal), Nashville, Tennessee; Marjorie A. Bristol (at motion for new trial and on appeal), Hendersonville, Tennessee; and G. Kerry Haymaker and David R. Heroux (at trial), Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jerome Sidney Barrett.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel West Harmon, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. (Torry) Johnson, III, District Attorney General; Tom Thurman, Leticia Alexander, and Rachel Sobrero, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): TIPTON

The Defendant, Jerome Sidney Barrett, was found guilty by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree murder for the 1975 homicide of S.D. See T.C.A. § 39-2402 (1975) (amended 1977, 1979, 1988) (renumbered at § 39-2-202) (repealed 1989). He was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he contends that: (1) the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; (3) the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), and alternatively, in failing to instruct the jury regarding the lack of an autopsy report; (4) the trial court erred in admitting evidence for which the chain of custody was not sufficiently shown; (5) the trial court erred in admitting an inmate’s testimony about the Defendant’s prior statements and improperly redacting the statements; (6) the trial court erred in admitting altered photographs; (7) the trial court limited the Defendant’s ability to present a defense by failing to rule definitively that evidence of the Defendant’s other crimes was inadmissible; (8) the trial court erred in denying the defense motion for expert services to assist in the motion for new trial; and (9) the Defendant’s due process rights were violated by the cumulative effect of the errors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Attachments: