February 2014 Archives

Prosecutorial misconduct may occur where a prosecutor in a criminal case makes in an inappropriate argument or improper comments during the opening or closing statements of a trial. Generally, a prosecutor must stick to the facts presented at trial and the question of guilt, and avoid arguments or statements meant to inflame passions or prejudices. In the recent case of State v. Smith, M2013-00733-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 2-25-2014), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals rejected a defendant's contention that it was prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecutor, during closing argument, to compare the defense theory to "Leprechauns and Fairy God Mothers."

The Vols defensive lineman Danny O'Brien was recently arrested at a Knoxville apartment on multiple charges. The Knoxville police were called to the scene after the report of a disturbance at the domicile, and they discovered O'Brien along with seven other football players supposedly drinking and partying. O'Brien was charged with underage drinking as well as other offenses.

Understandably, prosecutors usually seek to convict suspects who are accused of drunk driving. Drunk driving is the cause for many dangerous and deadly car accidents in Tennessee. However, some suspects charged with driving under the influence may see their cases drop. An attorney has stepped in to possibly have DUI cases dismissed on grounds of conflict of interest.

Judicial diversion is a process by which a defendant in a criminal case, who acknowledges guilt of an offense, may still avoid a criminal conviction under certain circumstances. The defendant generally must have no prior criminal convictions and complete a probationary period which may include other requirements imposed by the sentencing court. At the successful conclusion of the diversion terms and probationary period, and completion of payment of court costs and restitution if applicable, the charges can be dismissed by the sentencing court. Not all criminal offenses are eligible for this process. In determining whether to grant judicial diversion if it is requested, a sentencing court must determine eligibility and then must decide whether to grant it based on specific factors which must be weighed by the court in considering the request. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Turner, M2013-00827-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 1-29-2014), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a trial court decision denying judicial diversion in a reckless homicide case, and remanded the case for further consideration by the trial court.

Judicial diversion is a process by which a defendant in a criminal case, who acknowledges guilt of an offense, may still avoid a criminal conviction under certain circumstances. The defendant generally must have no prior criminal convictions and complete a probationary period which may include other requirements imposed by the sentencing court. At the successful conclusion of the diversion terms and probationary period, and completion of payment of court costs and restitution if applicable, the charges can be dismissed by the sentencing court. Not all criminal offenses are eligible for this process. In determining whether to grant judicial diversion if it is requested, a sentencing court must determine eligibility and then must decide whether to grant it based on specific factors which must be weighed by the court in considering the request. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Turner, M2013-00827-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 1-29-2014), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a trial court decision denying judicial diversion in a reckless homicide case, and remanded the case for further consideration by the trial court.