State of Tennessee v. Christopher Swift and Marquavious Houston-Concurring In Part, Dissenting In Part
This text of State of Tennessee v. Christopher Swift and Marquavious Houston-Concurring In Part, Dissenting In Part (State of Tennessee v. Christopher Swift and Marquavious Houston-Concurring In Part, Dissenting In Part) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 07, 2014 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER SWIFT and MARQUAVIOUS HOUSTON
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 11-04531 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge
No. W2013-00842-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 5, 2015
T IMOTHY L. E ASTER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the results and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant Defendant Swift’s motion to sever. In my view, neither Rule 8 or Rule 14 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure required the trial court to grant Defendant Swift’s motion to sever.
Furthermore, I am satisfied that the trial court gave clear and correct instructions on how the jury was to consider the evidence as to each Defendant. The manner in which the evidence was admitted by the trial court did not so prejudice Defendant Swift as to require severance.
_______________________________ TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Swift and Marquavious Houston-Concurring In Part, Dissenting In Part, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-christopher-swift-and-marquav-tenncrimapp-2015.