State of Tennessee v. Ernest Edward Wilson - Concurring and Dissenting
This text of State of Tennessee v. Ernest Edward Wilson - Concurring and Dissenting (State of Tennessee v. Ernest Edward Wilson - Concurring and Dissenting) 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 NASHVILLE August 14, 2001 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ERNEST EDWARD WILSON
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County NO . 98-D-2474
NO . M2000-01997-CCA-R3-CD - FILED OCTOBER 17, 2001
James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., concurring and dissenting.
Although I agree with Judge Welles that it is problematic to use voluntary manslaughter as the intermediate offense for the purposes of applying the Williams harmless error rule, I concur with Judge Riley in affirming the conviction, based on the facts of the present case and the defendant’s use of those facts in formulating a theory of defense. Given the facts, the defendant’s theory of defense, and the jury’s verdict of second-degree murder, I conclude that the failure to charge the included offenses lesser than voluntary manslaughter was harmless error.
___________________________________ James Curwood Witt, Jr., 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. Ernest Edward Wilson - Concurring and Dissenting, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-ernest-edward-wilson-concurri-tenncrimapp-2001.