State of Tennessee v. John A. Boatfield

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. John A. Boatfield

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedDecember 20, 2001

DocketE2000-01500-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. John A. Boatfield (State of Tennessee v. John A. Boatfield) 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. John A. Boatfield, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 25, 2001 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN A. BOATFIELD

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos. 222129, 2221315 Rebecca J. Stern, Judge

No. E2000-01500-CCA-R3-CD December 20, 2001

JOSEPH M. TIPTON , J., concurring.

I concur in all respects save one. I seriously question the conclusion that all of the victim’s statements to her mother were admissible as excited utterances. A declarant’s opinion about who caused an event would ordinarily not be admissible even if the declarant appeared and testified at a trial. Here, I do not believe that the victim’s opinion about who started the fire was admissible. However, given the location and timing of the fire, the inferences drawn by the victim as to the potential cause of it would be obvious to the jury in any event. Thus, I do not believe that the error affected the verdict.

_____________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

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 KNOXVILLE September 25, 2001 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN A. BOATFIELD

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos. 222129, 2221315 Rebecca J. Stern, Judge

No. E2000-01500-CCA-R3-CD December 20, 2001

JOSEPH M. TIPTON , J., concurring.

I concur in all respects save one. I seriously question the conclusion that all of the victim’s statements to her mother were admissible as excited utterances. A declarant’s opinion about who caused an event would ordinarily not be admissible even if the declarant appeared and testified at a trial. Here, I do not believe that the victim’s opinion about who started the fire was admissible. However, given the location and timing of the fire, the inferences drawn by the victim as to the potential cause of it would be obvious to the jury in any event. Thus, I do not believe that the error affected the verdict.

_____________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. John A. Boatfield, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-john-a-boatfield-tenncrimapp-2001.