STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JARVIS SHERROD and ANTONIO DODSON - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on May 9, 2017

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Charles Edgar Waldman, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, Jarvis Sherrod.

Attorneys 2:

Michael R. Working and Seth M. Segraves, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, Antonio Dodson.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Counsel; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Alexia Fulgham Crump and Eric Christensen, Assistant District Attorney Generals, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): MCMULLEN

The Defendants, Jarvis Sherrod and Antonio Dodson, were each convicted by a Shelby County Jury of three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Sherrod was also convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to seventy-three years’ incarceration; Antonio Dodson was sentenced to forty-four years’ incarceration. In Jarvis Sherrod’s appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to sever his case from that of his co-defendant; (2) denying his right to a speedy trial; (3) improperly admitting a gun into evidence at trial; (4) allowing the victims’ prior consistent statements at trial; and (5) improperly exercising its duty as thirteenth juror. In Antonio Dodson’s appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to sever his case from that of his co-defendant; (2) finding that the evidence was sufficient to support two of his especially aggravated kidnapping convictions; (3) allowing improper closing argument by the State; (4) allowing the victims’ prior consistent statements at trial; (5) allowing improper expert witness testimony; and (6) denying his motion to dismiss count ten of the indictment for failure to provide sufficient notice of the charge. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.