Hindman & Lanzon Hindman & Lanzon
Call for a Free Consultation
865-223-6450

May 2013 Archives

Inference of Tactical Decision Blocks Plain Error Review

As addressed in the previous post, "plain error" review may still occur on direct appeal for issues which were not properly preserved for appeal. The criteria for plain error review includes that the record must clearly establish what happened; a clear and unequivocal rule must be breached; a substantive right of the accused must be adversely affected; the issue must not have been waived for tactical reasons; and that consideration is necessary to do substantial justice.

Inference of Tactical Decision Blocks Plain Error Review

As addressed in the previous post, "plain error" review may still occur on direct appeal for issues which were not properly preserved for appeal. The criteria for plain error review includes that the record must clearly establish what happened; a clear and unequivocal rule must be breached; a substantive right of the accused must be adversely affected; the issue must not have been waived for tactical reasons; and that consideration is necessary to do substantial justice.

Inference of Tactical Decision Blocks Plain Error Review

As addressed in the previous post, "plain error" review may still occur on direct appeal for issues which were not properly preserved for appeal. The criteria for plain error review includes that the record must clearly establish what happened; a clear and unequivocal rule must be breached; a substantive right of the accused must be adversely affected; the issue must not have been waived for tactical reasons; and that consideration is necessary to do substantial justice.

Semi driver accused of driving drunk, causing fatal crash

Being accused of having been involved in a DUI accident can be a very serious matter. Major criminal charges can be brought against a person in connection to such an accusation. A person can face particularly serious charges if the alleged DUI accident resulted in a death. This can be seen in a DUI case that has recently arisen in one of Tennessee's neighbors: Kentucky.

Admission of Recorded Accusations Not Plain Error

Appellate courts may occasionally conduct "plain error" review of issues which were not properly preserved for appeal at the trial court level. To review an issue for plain error, a set of criteria must be met, which include that the record must clearly establish what happened, a clear and unequivocal rule must be breached, a substantive right of the accused must be adversely affected, the issue must not have been waived for tactical reasons, and that consideration is necessary to do substantial justice. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Guilfoy, M2012-00600-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 5-13-2013), the Court of Criminal Appeals declined plain error review of whether video recorded accusations by the child victims were properly admitted into evidence in a trial for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery.

Admission of Recorded Accusations Not Plain Error

Appellate courts may occasionally conduct "plain error" review of issues which were not properly preserved for appeal at the trial court level. To review an issue for plain error, a set of criteria must be met, which include that the record must clearly establish what happened, a clear and unequivocal rule must be breached, a substantive right of the accused must be adversely affected, the issue must not have been waived for tactical reasons, and that consideration is necessary to do substantial justice. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Guilfoy, M2012-00600-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 5-13-2013), the Court of Criminal Appeals declined plain error review of whether video recorded accusations by the child victims were properly admitted into evidence in a trial for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery.

Admission of Recorded Accusations Not Plain Error

Appellate courts may occasionally conduct "plain error" review of issues which were not properly preserved for appeal at the trial court level. To review an issue for plain error, a set of criteria must be met, which include that the record must clearly establish what happened, a clear and unequivocal rule must be breached, a substantive right of the accused must be adversely affected, the issue must not have been waived for tactical reasons, and that consideration is necessary to do substantial justice. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Guilfoy, M2012-00600-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 5-13-2013), the Court of Criminal Appeals declined plain error review of whether video recorded accusations by the child victims were properly admitted into evidence in a trial for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery.

NTSB recommends lowering legal limit to 0.05

In the U.S., laws regarding drunk driving are set by the states. However, this does not mean that the federal government plays no role when it comes to drunk driving laws. There are many different methods the federal government sometimes uses to try to influence state drunk driving laws.

Court Affirms Denial of Mitigation in Sex Abuse Case

In criminal sentencing, mitigation factors can generally be argued and considered in offsetting enhancement factors and arguing for a lower sentence within a statutory range of punishment. Trial courts have discretion in considering what mitigating factors to apply, and may even consider factors not specifically listed by statute.

Court Affirms Denial of Mitigation in Sex Abuse Case

In criminal sentencing, mitigation factors can generally be argued and considered in offsetting enhancement factors and arguing for a lower sentence within a statutory range of punishment. Trial courts have discretion in considering what mitigating factors to apply, and may even consider factors not specifically listed by statute.

Court Affirms Denial of Mitigation in Sex Abuse Case

In criminal sentencing, mitigation factors can generally be argued and considered in offsetting enhancement factors and arguing for a lower sentence within a statutory range of punishment. Trial courts have discretion in considering what mitigating factors to apply, and may even consider factors not specifically listed by statute.

Tennessee school bus driver admits to drunk driving

When someone is arrested and charged with drunk driving, the first thing that's important is to challenge the evidence if you believe you have been wrongly accused. There are many ways that this can be done. But for many people, they make mistakes and get caught. It's important to know how to handle what comes next. 

Appellate Court Declines Judicial Notice of State Fair Date

Judicial notice allows a court to accept the truth of a fact without that fact having to be specifically proven by evidence presented in court. This usually pertains to facts so well known that they cannot reasonably be doubted. An often used example is that judicial notice may be taken of what day of the week corresponds to a particular given date. The court may consult a calendar. But the calendar need not be introduced into the evidentiary record as proof. Existing laws and regulations are other subjects of which courts take judicial notice.

Appellate Court Declines Judicial Notice of State Fair Date

Judicial notice allows a court to accept the truth of a fact without that fact having to be specifically proven by evidence presented in court. This usually pertains to facts so well known that they cannot reasonably be doubted. An often used example is that judicial notice may be taken of what day of the week corresponds to a particular given date. The court may consult a calendar. But the calendar need not be introduced into the evidentiary record as proof. Existing laws and regulations are other subjects of which courts take judicial notice.

Appellate Court Declines Judicial Notice of State Fair Date

Judicial notice allows a court to accept the truth of a fact without that fact having to be specifically proven by evidence presented in court. This usually pertains to facts so well known that they cannot reasonably be doubted. An often used example is that judicial notice may be taken of what day of the week corresponds to a particular given date. The court may consult a calendar. But the calendar need not be introduced into the evidentiary record as proof. Existing laws and regulations are other subjects of which courts take judicial notice.

Evidence Sufficient to Affirm Conviction for Rape of a Child

In a criminal trial with conflicting evidence, it is the role of the jury to resolve the evidentiary conflicts and arrive at a conclusion as to guilt or acquittal. On appeal, appellate courts do not consider whether they agree or disagree with the jury's resolution of conflicting facts and evidence. Appellate courts review to determine whether there was evidence from which the jury could reasonably have reached its conclusions of guilt (jury acquittals are not appealable in the United States). In the recent case of State v. Pantaleon, M2012-00575-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Criim.App. 4-25-2013), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery.

Evidence Sufficient to Affirm Conviction for Rape of a Child

In a criminal trial with conflicting evidence, it is the role of the jury to resolve the evidentiary conflicts and arrive at a conclusion as to guilt or acquittal. On appeal, appellate courts do not consider whether they agree or disagree with the jury's resolution of conflicting facts and evidence. Appellate courts review to determine whether there was evidence from which the jury could reasonably have reached its conclusions of guilt (jury acquittals are not appealable in the United States). In the recent case of State v. Pantaleon, M2012-00575-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Criim.App. 4-25-2013), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery.

Evidence Sufficient to Affirm Conviction for Rape of a Child

In a criminal trial with conflicting evidence, it is the role of the jury to resolve the evidentiary conflicts and arrive at a conclusion as to guilt or acquittal. On appeal, appellate courts do not consider whether they agree or disagree with the jury's resolution of conflicting facts and evidence. Appellate courts review to determine whether there was evidence from which the jury could reasonably have reached its conclusions of guilt (jury acquittals are not appealable in the United States). In the recent case of State v. Pantaleon, M2012-00575-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Criim.App. 4-25-2013), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery.

Supreme Court rules on warrantless blood tests

There are many different tools and methods police use in their enforcement efforts against drunk driving. One tool police sometimes use in such efforts are blood tests to determine an individual's blood alcohol level. A question arose in connection to such tests: do police need a warrant to conduct such tests? In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court answered this question. The Supreme Court's answer to the question is that, in most circumstances, a warrant is required for police to conduct a blood test to determine an individual's blood alcohol level.

map map

Hindman & Lanzon
550 West Main Street
Suite 550
Knoxville, TN 37902

Toll Free: 866-383-1545
Phone: 865-223-6450
Fax: 865-521-6371
Knoxville Law Office Map