State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer - Concurring
This text of State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer - Concurring (State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer - 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 23, 2002 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RAYMOND WRITER
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County No. S42,614 Phyllis H. Miller, Judge
No. E2001-01062-CCA-R3-CD June 10, 2003
DAVID H. WELLES, J., CONCURRING.
I agree with Judge Smith’s conclusion that the Defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. I write separately only because I disagree with his conclusion that the trial court should not have allowed admission of the victim’s statement to Dr. DeMoss identifying the Defendant. Pursuant to State v. Livingston, 907 SW 2d 392 (Tenn. 1995), and for the same reason Dr. Heise’s testimony was deemed admissible, I believe the trial court properly admitted the statements made by the victim to Dr. DeMoss identifying the Defendant. In all other respects, I fully join in Judge Smith’s opinion. Because Judge Smith found the trial court’s error to be harmless, I fully concur in the result which he reaches. I am authorized to say that Judge Joe G. Riley joins this concurring opinion.
____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
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. Raymond Writer - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-raymond-writer-concurring-tenncrimapp-2003.