STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KENNETH PAUL COLVETT - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Chandra Williams on Oct 20, 2015

Head Comment: The corrections are: Page 4: "a" inserted between "in" and "t-shirt" in the third paragraph. Page 9: "dinning" changed to "dining" in the second paragraph. Page 15: extra line space removed before block quote at the top of the page (this changed the pagination of the rest of the opinion). Page 19: "to him" deleted from between "victim" and "a" in the second paragraph. Page 30: extra space inserted between "evidence" and first dot of ellipses. Page 33: Citation to State v. Jackson changed from slip opinion/Westlaw to Southwest Reporter in footnote 7. Page 40-42: Citations to State v. Jackson changed from slip opinion/Westlaw to Southwest Reporter throughout these pages.

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Walter W. Bussart, Lewisburg, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); and Jason Charles Davis, Lewisburg, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Kenneth Paul Colvett. 1For

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel; Robert Carter, District Attorney General; Weakley E. Barnard and Michael David Randles, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee

Judge(s): THOMAS

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Kenneth Paul Colvett, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the jury erred by rejecting the defense of insanity; (2) that the trial court erred by not allowing defense counsel to take home prior written statements made by a witness and by not admitting extrinsic evidence of the statements of two witnesses during trial; (3) that the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (4) that the trial court erred by refusing to provide the Defendant with a transcript of a prior hearing in this case; (5) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during the cross-examination of the Defendant’s expert witness; (6) that the trial court erred by questioning the Defendant about his decision not to testify at trial; (7) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument by commenting on the Defendant’s decision not to testify; and (8) that the Defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon cumulative error. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of 1 the trial court.