 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bankston2/4/1999
The defendant, Charles Frank Bankston, appeals as of right following his convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court of Hamilton County of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. He received sentences of twenty-five years and two years to be served concurrently in the custody of the Department of Correction. The defendant presents the following issues for our review:
"(1) whether the indictment is sufficient;"
"(2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's convictions;"
"(3) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion for a change of venue;"
"(4) whether the defendant was denied a fair trial when the trial court limited the defendant's questioning of two potential jurors during voir dire;"
"(5) whether the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the case on the grounds of double jeopardy;"
"(6) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow testimony and refusing to instruct the jury regarding the legal presumptions of people with certain blood alcohol levels;"
"(7) whether the trial court erred in its charge to the jury regarding multiple indictments and the definitions of reckless and knowing;"
"(8) whether the statute providing for instructing the jury about parole eligibility, T.C.A. § 40-35- 201(b), is unconstitutional;"
"(9) whether the trial court erred in its charge to the jury by incorrectly calculating the minimum number of years the defendant would spend in jail;"
"(10) whether the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence at the sentencing hearing; and"
"(11) whether the trial court erred in sentencing by applying certain aggravating factors, failing to apply certain mitigating factors, and imposing an excessive sentence."
We conclude that the convictions should be affirmed but the sentence for second degree murder should be modified.
Steve Gentry testified that on August 26, 1994, he and his friend, Dr. Don Jezewski, met at the Ocean Avenue Cafe in Chattanooga at about 6:15 p.m. He said they each drank about six bourbon and cokes and ate a sampler platter, which is a large dish. He said they left the restaurant at about 8:45 p.m. and went toward Jezewski's car in the parking lot. He said that as they were walking, Jezewski saw the defendant, whom neither of them knew, and said the defendant was too drunk to drive. He said Jezewski suggested they talk to the defendant.
Gentry testified that the defendant was driving a red Camaro. He said that Jezewski approached the defendant and told him, "My friend, I think you shouldn't be driving home. You've had too much to drink." He said Jezewski was not threatening the defendant. He said the Camaro door on the driver's side was open, and he and Jezewski were standing in the doorway. He testified that the defendant replied that he was fine and could drive. He said the defendant was slurring his words. He said that the conversation between Jezewski and the defendant was pleasant. Gentry testified that he told the defendant his car was pretty, and it would be a shame to mess it up. He said Jezewski asked the defendant where he lived and offered to drive the defendant home. He said the defendant refused, insisting that he was fine to drive. He said the defendant appeared to understand everything they were saying to him, and he gave logical responses to their questions.
Gentry testified that after Jezewski offered to pay for a taxi cab to drive the defendant home, which he refused, the defendant started to back up. Gentry stated that th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|