 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Reid7/20/2001
d not know what the conversation was about and that no one appeared angry afterward.
Defendant admitted that, at this point, he and his friends were intoxicated. Malone wanted the women to come to their motel room, but they told him they needed to make a phone call first. While the men waited for the women to return, Malone went back to ask the people at the Williams' apartment for a beer. When he came downstairs empty- handed, Sanford went back up the stairs with him. It started raining, so Defendant went upstairs also. When he reached the top stair, he heard arguing. Then "someone got pushed and a gunshot went off," so Defendant ran back downstairs to the car to "get out of the way."
Defendant testified that he had some difficulty getting the car to start. By the time he did, Sanford and Malone had jumped in the car with him and they all drove away. Defendant was frightened because he was on probation and was supposed to stay out of trouble. When the police spotted them and tried to pull them over, Defendant "mashed" the accelerator in an attempt to escape. Sanford ducked down, and Malone wrapped the guns inside of his shirt. Malone instructed Defendant to pull over to the side of the highway so he could throw the guns out of the car, and Defendant complied. When Defendant finally stopped the car, he tried to get away on foot, but the police caught him and arrested him.
Defendant further testified that, to the best of his knowledge, Malone and Sanford did not rob anyone of anything on May 22, 1998, and, furthermore, Defendant did not know that Malone and Sanford had guns with them that day. Defendant also testified that he did not have a gun, he did not shoot anyone, and he did not rob anybody that evening. Defendant claimed his only interests centered on drugs and females.
On cross-examination, Defendant explained that, even though he had not done anything wrong, he ran from the police because he feared for his life. The Chattanooga police had recently killed one of his friends, and Defendant believed that the police might kill him too. With regard to the victims' testimony that Defendant carried a gun, he claimed that all three witnesses were either lying or must have confused him with someone else. Defendant claimed that he was far too busy running away to recall anything about the shooting incident, except for hearing gunshots.
II. Analysis
A. Indictment
Defendant contends that the State failed to comply with mandatory statutory procedures concerning proper presentation and filing of the indictment in his case and, therefore, his convictions cannot stand because the charging instrument had no legal effect. Specifically, Defendant claims that the record fails to show that the indictment was presented by the foreman to the court in the grand jury's presence in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-108 and, further, that the indictment was not properly filed or entered by the clerk before the trial commenced as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-109.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-13-108 provides the following: "An indictment, when found by the grand jury and endorsed as prescribed by this part, shall be presented by the foreman, in the grand jury's presence, to the court, and filed by the clerk." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 13-108 (1997).
Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-13-109 further provides that
All indictments for public offenses of the grade of felony, returned into court by the grand jury with the endorsement a "true bill," shall be entered by the clerk with the return in full on the minutes of the court, and the originals compared with the entry by the judge before t
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.
|
|