STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEFFREY SCOTT LONG - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on Jul 12, 2017

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

George R. Maifair, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jeffrey Scott Long.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Nicholas W. Spangler, Assistant Attorney General; Michael L. Flynn, District Attorney General; and Betsy Smith and Shari Tayloe, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WOODALL

Defendant, Jeffrey Scott Long, was indicted by the Blount County Grand Jury for first degree murder, felony murder during the perpetration of a burglary, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged, and the trial court merged the two murder convictions. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the murder conviction and concurrent six-year sentences for the remaining two convictions. In this appeal as of right, Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) Defendant’s statement to police should have been suppressed because he made an unequivocal request for counsel, and he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights; 2) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence an order of protection granted to the victim against Defendant; 3) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence autopsy photos; 4) the trial court should have suppressed evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of Defendant’s apartment; 5) the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony outside the scope of the forensic pathologist’s expertise; 6) the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s request for a special jury instruction; 7) the trial court erred by allowing evidence that was not properly authenticated; 8) Defendant was denied a fair trial because a portion of trial testimony was not transcribed; 9) the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s convictions; 10) the State exceeded the scope of its closing argument on rebuttal; and 11) the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal of Defendant’s convictions. Having carefully reviewed the entire record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that there is no error. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant’s convictions.

Attachments: