John David Terry v. State

CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedApril 25, 2001
DocketM1999-00191-SC-DDT-DD
StatusPublished

This text of John David Terry v. State (John David Terry v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John David Terry v. State, (Tenn. 2001).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 6, 2001 Session

JOHN DAVID TERRY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 87-S-975 Hon. J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge

No. M1999-00191-SC-DDT-DD - Filed April 25, 2001

ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., dissenting.

In a line of dissents beginning with State v. Chalmers, I have repeatedly emphasized my belief that Tennessee’s comparative proportionality review protocol is inadequate and must be reformed. 28 S.W.3d 913, 923-25 (Tenn. 2000) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); see also, e.g., State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 581-82 (Tenn. 2000) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Keen, 31 S.W.3d 196, 233-34 (Tenn. 2000) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting). I have pointed out three shortcomings of the current protocol: “the ‘test’ we employ [for comparative proportionality review] is so broad that nearly any sentence could be found proportionate; our review procedures are too subjective; and the ‘pool’ of cases which are reviewed for proportionality is too small.” Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d at 923 (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting). These flaws, in my view, must be corrected if this Court is to provide genuine assurance that disproportionate sentences of death will not be upheld. I adhere to the views I have expressed in these previous cases.

As I have stated before in the context of other dissents, “I am unwilling to approve of results reached through the use of a procedure with which I cannot agree.” See Coe v. State, 17 S.W.3d 193, 248-49 (Tenn. 2000) (Birch, J., dissenting). To date, the majority has made no discernible effort to correct the flaws in our comparative proportionality review protocol. Therefore, I dissent from the Court’s decision to impose the death penalty in this case.

___________________________________ ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Carruthers
35 S.W.3d 516 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2000)
Coe v. State
17 S.W.3d 193 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Keen
31 S.W.3d 196 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Chalmers
28 S.W.3d 913 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
John David Terry v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-david-terry-v-state-tenn-2001.