 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Collins12/12/2005
uacy of the Trial Court's Limiting Instruction
The Defendant next contends that the trial court did not provide an adequate limiting instruction about how the jury should consider his prior conviction. During the jury instructions, the trial court failed to give a limiting instruction that a prior conviction could only be used to impeach the Defendant and not as proof that he committed the crime in question. The Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to provide the jury a limiting instruction. The State counters that, although the trial court did not single out the issue of the Defendant's prior convictions in the instructions dealing with impeachment, the trial court did provide a general impeachment instruction, and that the Defendant suffered no prejudice from the trial court's failure to give a limiting instruction specifically addressing the Defendant's prior conviction. The State further asserts that, because the Defendant did not request a specific limiting instruction and did not raise this issue in his motion for a new trial, the issue is waived.
Issues not raised before the trial court or in a motion for new trial are deemed waived. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a). In State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the issue squarely before us. In that case, the defendant claimed that the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury about how it could consider proof that the defendant had committed other crimes. Id. at 254-55. The Court noted that the defendant failed to object to the court's omission of such instructions and failed to raise the issue in his motion for new trial. Id. It went on to discuss the "fundamental error" rule set out in the previous decision of State v. Reece, 637 S.W.2d 858 (Tenn. 1982), stating:
In State v. Reece, . . . this Court held that where the State's case is weak and prior inconsistent statements admitted for impeachment are extremely damaging, the failure to give a limiting instruction that the statements are only to be considered on the issue of credibility may amount to fundamental error constituting grounds for reversal, even in the absence of a special request. Reece, 637 S.W.2d at 861. This holding, however, was "limited to those exceptional cases in which the impeaching testimony is extremely damaging, the need for a limiting instruction is apparent, and the failure to give it results in substantial prejudice to the rights of the accused." Id.
Id. The Court continued:
Our review of the record convinces us that the "fundamental error" rule of State v. Reece, . . . is not applicable to this case. See id. An important factor for the court in Reece, was the fact that the prior inconsistent statements used to impeach were so damaging that the failure to give a limiting instruction, in essence, allowed the jury to consider the impeachment evidence as substantive evidence, and thereby allowed inadmissible hearsay evidence to take precedence over testimony given under oath by the witness on the stand. In this case, the testimony about the defendant's other crimes was relevant to his guilt, and no hearsay problems were involved.
Accordingly, although there is a significant possibility of misuse with testimony about a defendant's commission of other crimes, and limiting instructions are critical in preventing improper and prejudicial use of proof of other crimes, see, e.g., State v. Fisher, 670 S.W.2d 232, 237 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983), we conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error in failing to give limiting instructions with respect to the proof of other crimes.
Id. The Court then held that the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|