STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ETHAN ALEXANDER SELF - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on Aug 29, 2016

Head Comment: With Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Montgomery

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

John T. Milburn Rogers, Greeneville, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); Jenny Coques Rogers, Greeneville, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); Herbert S. Moncier, Knoxville, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); and Jonathan P. Harwell, Knoxville, Tennessee (on appeal), for the appellant, Ethan Alexander Self.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Nicholas W. Spangler, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony Clark, District Attorney General Pro Tempore; Dennis Brooks, Assistant District Attorney General Pro Tempore, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WILLIAMS

The Defendant, Ethan Alexander Self, was found guilty by a Hawkins County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 (2014). He was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, (2) the State improperly exercised a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror for a race-based reason, (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, (4) the court erred in denying the Defendant's motions for a mistrial based upon the State's failure to disclose evidence, (5) the court erred in denying his motions for a mistrial based upon the State's eliciting evidence in violation of the court's pretrial evidentiary rulings, (6) the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the State's failure to preserve alarm clocks from the victim's bedroom, (7) the court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant and the victim's good relationship and lack of abuse, (8) the court erred in the procedure by which the jury inspected the gun used in the victim's homicide, (9) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the State's rebuttal argument, (10) the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense, (11) cumulative trial error necessitates a new trial, and (12) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We conclude that there is no reversible error, and we accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.