STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEORGE ANDREW STANHOPE - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Sep 12, 2013

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Gary W. Wicks, Sr., and Robert L. Booker, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellant, George Andrew Stanhope.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Assistant Attorney General; Kim R. Helper, District Attorney General; Michael Joseph Fahey, II, and Kate Yeager, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): THOMAS

The Defendant, George Andrew Stanhope, was indicted for first degree premeditated murder, three counts of first degree felony murder, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, aggravated burglary, and aggravated rape. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13- 202, -13-502, -14-103, -14-105(a)(3), -14-403. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, and aggravated burglary. The jury acquitted the Defendant of the charge of aggravated rape and one count of first degree felony murder. The trial court merged the two first degree felony murder convictions with the first degree premeditated murder conviction. The jury imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for the first degree premeditated murder conviction. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on the remaining convictions and imposed a sentence of six years for the aggravated burglary conviction and a sentence of four years for the theft conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutive to each other and to the sentence for the first degree premeditated murder conviction, for an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus ten years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to the police; (2) that the trial court erred by not allowing defense counsel to review the personnel file of a former police detective; (3) that the in-court security around the Defendant was excessive and gave the jury the impression that he was in custody; (4) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions; (5) that the trial court erred by not merging the Defendant’s convictions for theft and aggravated burglary; (6) that the statutory aggravating circumstance of the victim’s age was unconstitutional; (7) that a new trial was warranted because one of the jurors failed to disclose her relationship with the court clerk during voir dire; and (8) that the Defendant was entitled to a new trial due to cumulative error. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: