State of Tennessee v. David Ivy - Concurring and Dissenting
This text of State of Tennessee v. David Ivy - Concurring and Dissenting (State of Tennessee v. David Ivy - Concurring and Dissenting) 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 9, 2005 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID IVY
Automatic Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-12388 Joseph B. Dailey, Judge
No. W2003-00786-SC-DDT-DD - Filed February 28, 2006
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the conclusion of the majority that Ivy’s convictions should be affirmed. As to the sentence of death, however, I respectfully dissent. I continue to adhere to my view that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty. See State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286, 323-325 (Tenn. 2005)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting), and cases cited therein. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion affirming the imposition of the death penalty in this case.
___________________________________ ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Tennessee v. David Ivy - Concurring and Dissenting, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-david-ivy-concurring-and-diss-tenn-2006.