State of Tennessee v. Vernica Shabree Ward - Concurring

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. Vernica Shabree Ward - Concurring

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedDecember 30, 2003

DocketM2002-01816-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. Vernica Shabree Ward - Concurring (State of Tennessee v. Vernica Shabree Ward - 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. Vernica Shabree Ward - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 17, 2003 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. VERNICA SHABREE WARD

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 99-D-2836 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge

No. M2002-01816-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 30, 2003

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., separate concurring.

I agree with the majority opinion that the so-called “rule of three” evidence should have been excluded in this case, based upon the trial court’s initial ruling that there was insufficient foundation laid to allow its admissibility. I write separately to express that I limit my decision to the instant case. After careful review, I concluded that the admissibility of this evidence was a very close decision and deferred, as I must, to the trial court’s decision. However, with additional testimony concerning the McDaniel factors, a proper foundation might be laid for admitting expert testimony concerning the “rule of three.”

___________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, 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 NASHVILLE June 17, 2003 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. VERNICA SHABREE WARD

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 99-D-2836 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge

No. M2002-01816-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 30, 2003

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., separate concurring.

I agree with the majority opinion that the so-called “rule of three” evidence should have been excluded in this case, based upon the trial court’s initial ruling that there was insufficient foundation laid to allow its admissibility. I write separately to express that I limit my decision to the instant case. After careful review, I concluded that the admissibility of this evidence was a very close decision and deferred, as I must, to the trial court’s decision. However, with additional testimony concerning the McDaniel factors, a proper foundation might be laid for admitting expert testimony concerning the “rule of three.”

___________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. Vernica Shabree Ward - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-vernica-shabree-ward-concurri-tenncrimapp-2003.