Defense Wins a Vehicle Search and Seizure Case
In the recent search and seizure case of State v. Donaldson, M2010-0069-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 9-15-2011), the State of Tennessee, appealing a trial court ruling excluding evidence, asserted that a police officer has unrestricted authority to order a motorist to exit a vehicle at any point during a valid traffic stop. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals disagrees.
State Loses Appeal on Double Jeopardy Issue
A person who violates a court order of protection in Tennessee may be prosecuted under criminal contempt provisions or under a criminal statute criminalizing violations of orders of protection. However, charging both criminal contempt and violation of the criminal statute may be double jeopardy, depending on the circumstances of the case. Though the Tennessee Attorney
Testimony is Sufficient Evidence Where Video is Inconclusive
It is common in DUI cases to review patrol car video of the initial stop to help determine whether that stop was legally justified (something to be considered in any DUI case where a police officer has initiated a stop of the Defendant’s vehicle). Though the video can in some cases be very helpful in determining the
Consecutive Sentencing Upheld in a Vehicular Homicide Case
In criminal sentencing for multiple convictions where the convictions are not required by law to run consecutive to each other, the trial court can, in the court’s discretion, impose the convictions consecutively if the court finds one of several specific statutory conditions apply. The conditions are listed in Tennessee Code Annotated 40-35-115(b). One of those conditions is
Sixth Circuit Addresses Retroactive Application of SORNA
In July 2006, Congress passed the Sex-Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), which provides federal criminal penalties for sex offenders who move across state lines and fail to comply with sex offender registration requirements. The act indicated that the Attorney General would have the authority to specify how and to what extent the act would apply to
Defense Win in a Search and Seizure Case
Appellate challenges to trial court rulings on admissibility of evidence in criminal cases, including questions of whether a particular search and seizure was reasonable, do not often result in reversals. Appellate courts must rely on a trial court’s findings of fact and determine whether the trial court’s application of law to those facts was reversible error.
Evidence of Gang Affiliation Relevant to Motive and Intent
In Tennessee criminal proceedings, character evidence is not generally admissible to prove that a defendant acted in conformity with a character trait. So the State would not be allowed to introduce evidence of gang affiliation to show that a defendant, as a gang member, is likely to be guilty of the types of crimes that gang
Underage Consumption Conviction Overturned
Post-conviction relief from a plea agreement is uncommon in Tennessee criminal law practice. Post-conviction relief from a misdemeanor plea to underage consumption is all the more rare. It was granted by the Court of Criminal Appeals in the recent case of State v. Word, M2011-00082-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn.Crim,.App. 7-18-2011). Mr. Word, without counsel at the time, pled guilty in Putnam County
From Cell Phone Photography to Search Warrant
Wal-Mart usually isn’t a place that most people would consider ideal for some photography practice. But for one man and his cell phone, it turned out to be a particularly bad idea. One leading indirectly to a felony conviction for sexual exploitation of a minor. In the case of State v. Herrera, W2010-01826-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 7-5-2011), the Defendant
Sometimes It’s Just Bad Luck (Search and Seizure)
The recent Sixth Circuit case of U.S. v. Godfrey, 10-4240 (6th Cir. 6-28-2011) is an interesting example of the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. Generally, evidence obtained from a warrantless search and seizure, not covered by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, is inadmissible against an accused in a criminal case. The exclusionary rule exists