 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Meeks12/3/1999
party to assign the basis of the objection as error in support of a motion for new trial.
Tenn. R. Crim. P. 30(a), (b).
In the case at bar, the record fails to reflect that the defense complied with the requirement that special requests be filed in writing. A trial court will not be placed in error where a requested special instruction was not presented in writing. State v. Mackey, 638 S.W.2d 830, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982).
Even if one assumes that the totality-of-the-circumstances instruction the defendant advocates on appeal would cure the alleged ambiguity problem to which he generally objected at trial, there is no evidence of record that the defendant tendered a written special request or even made an oral request for the court to supplement its proposed instruction with additional language per Lawrence. See Tenn. R. App. P. 30(a), (b); State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d 1, 15 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State v. Steven Dwight Womac, no number (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Aug. 29, 1989); Mackey, 638 S.W.2d at 836. Furthermore, there is no evidence of record from which we may conclude that this specific issue was ever presented orally to the trial court. We are loath to place the trial court in error where it has not had the opportunity to pass upon the specific contention raised. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e), 36(a).
For these reasons, appellate consideration of the propriety of the totality-of-the-circumstances instruction is waived.
Finding no error requiring reversal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
CONCUR: GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|