State of Tennessee v. Frederick Herron-Dissenting
This text of State of Tennessee v. Frederick Herron-Dissenting (State of Tennessee v. Frederick Herron-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 JACKSON June 4, 2013 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. FREDERICK HERRON
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 11-04122 Carolyn Wade Blackett, Judge
No. W2012-01195-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 17, 2014
J AMES C URWOOD W ITT, J R., J., dissenting.
As the majority says, this appeal presents a close case. After much consideration, I respectfully conclude that one error requires a reversal and a new trial.
The error is the Rule 609 issue. The majority concludes that the defendant loses on this issue because he did not proffer his testimony. Actually, I thought the majority presented a solid case for holding that a proffer was unnecessary. In a case presenting strong overtones of a “he said, she said” controversy, the trial court’s improper influencing the defendant to avoid testifying was especially egregious. As such, I conclude that the error requires reversal and a new trial.
___________________________________ 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. Frederick Herron-Dissenting, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-frederick-herron-dissenting-tenncrimapp-2014.