State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews - Concurring

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews - Concurring

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedAugust 13, 2010

DocketM2009-00692-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews - Concurring (State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews - Concurring) 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.

Bluebook

State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 30, 2010 at Knoxville

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEORGE WASHINGTON MATTHEWS

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2004-D-3131 Seth Norman, Judge

No. M2009-00692-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 13, 2010

J AMES C URWOOD W ITT, J R., J., concurring.

I concur in the court’s opinion and express the view that the pivot upon which the appeal in this case teeters is very finely pointed.

One can understand the trial judge’s comment, “I think it’s a question for the jury and the jury did set the amount,” to express his view that the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury and to support legally a verdict of guilty. In the proper context, a judge’s reference to the quantum of evidence being a jury question merely expresses the traditional test for whether the evidence is legally sufficient – whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); State v. Winters, 137 S.W.3d 641, 654 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).

Upon reviewing the context in which the comment was made in this case, however, it is clear that the arguments preceding the comment were directed toward the weight of the evidence. In arguing the defendant’s motion for a new trial, counsel specifically and narrowly claimed that, in light of the testimony about the contraband’s weighing .05 grams with a margin of error of .01 grams, the weight of the evidence did not support the verdict. The prosecutor joined the issue. In this context, the trial court opined that the question was one for the jury. I concur that, in context, the trial court “absolved itself of its responsibility to act as the thirteenth juror.” See State v. Carter, 896 S.W.2d 119, 122 (Tenn. 1995). In this situation, a new trial is required. JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 30, 2010 at Knoxville

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEORGE WASHINGTON MATTHEWS

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2004-D-3131 Seth Norman, Judge

No. M2009-00692-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 13, 2010

J AMES C URWOOD W ITT, J R., J., concurring.

I concur in the court’s opinion and express the view that the pivot upon which the appeal in this case teeters is very finely pointed.

One can understand the trial judge’s comment, “I think it’s a question for the jury and the jury did set the amount,” to express his view that the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury and to support legally a verdict of guilty. In the proper context, a judge’s reference to the quantum of evidence being a jury question merely expresses the traditional test for whether the evidence is legally sufficient – whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); State v. Winters, 137 S.W.3d 641, 654 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003).

Upon reviewing the context in which the comment was made in this case, however, it is clear that the arguments preceding the comment were directed toward the weight of the evidence. In arguing the defendant’s motion for a new trial, counsel specifically and narrowly claimed that, in light of the testimony about the contraband’s weighing .05 grams with a margin of error of .01 grams, the weight of the evidence did not support the verdict. The prosecutor joined the issue. In this context, the trial court opined that the question was one for the jury. I concur that, in context, the trial court “absolved itself of its responsibility to act as the thirteenth juror.” See State v. Carter, 896 S.W.2d 119, 122 (Tenn. 1995). In this situation, a new trial is required. JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-george-washington-matthews-co-tenncrimapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack