State of Tennessee v. Bart Leo Tucker - Dissent

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: August 7, 2017
• Docket: M2016-01960-CCA-R3-CD
• Status: Published

Opinion

08/07/2017 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 14, 2017 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BART LEO TUCKER

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. I-CR099094 Joseph Woodruff, Judge ___________________________________

No. M2016-01960-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________

Easter, J., dissenting

Because I believe the appellate record is incomplete for our review, I respectfully dissent. While I am certainly a proponent of records containing only what is essential for a meaningful review on appeal, when an appellant raises the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, as is the case here, all of the evidence presented at trial is needed. Here, Defendant has picked and chosen parts of only one of the State’s witnesses for inclusion in the record, leaving us to speculate whether other evidence or witness testimony may have fulfilled the State’s burden. Thus, the record does not convey a fair, accurate, and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issue of sufficiency of evidence. The record is not in keeping with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(b). I would grant Defendant’s “(Conditional) Motion To Supplement The Record” and then proceed with an unabridged record.

______________________________ TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE