 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henderson3/7/2001
no recognized statistical data that could be used to adjust Appellants' IQ levels while they were functioning in an intoxicated state.
Dr. Eugene Cord testified for the State that the results of an IQ test would be invalid if the test had been given to an intoxicated person. Dr. Cord also testified that while intoxication would impair performance, it would not affect IQ level. Dr. Cord testified that he was unaware of any statistical data that could be used to adjust an individual's IQ level while in an intoxicated state.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that there was no proof that alcohol use had any effect on IQ level. The trial court also found that it would be useless to test Appellants for IQ level while they were intoxicated because there was no recognized test for doing so. Moreover, the trial court found that Appellants had also failed to prove that they had deficits in adaptive behavior or that they had mental retardation that was manifested during the developmental period or by age eighteen.
We conclude that the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the trial court's findings that alcohol use does not effect IQ level and that there is no recognized test for determining the IQ level of an intoxicated person. Thus, testing Appellants for IQ level while they were intoxicated would have been an exercise in futility. In addition, the trial court's refusal to order the IQ tests did not prevent Appellants from showing that they did not have the required mental state for first degree murder because they were intoxicated at the time of the offense. Indeed, there was a great deal of evidence that Appellants had been drinking shortly before Griffin was killed and the trial court instructed the jury that " f you find that [Appellants] were intoxicated to the extent that they could not have possessed the required culpable mental state, then they cannot be guilty of the offense charged." In short, the trial court did not err when it refused to order that Appellants be tested for IQ levels while they were intoxicated. This issue has no merit.
IX. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT
Appellant Dellinger contends that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress evidence that was seized from his residence and the surrounding area pursuant to a search warrant.
On February 28, 1992, Detective Widener obtained a search warrant for Dellinger's residence, outbuildings, and land. Later that same day, Widener and some other officers searched Dellinger's property. During the search, the officers discovered and seized numerous shotgun shells, several shells form other weapons, a .303 rifle, and a Mossberg shotgun barrel. Dellinger contends that these items were inadmissible evidence because the search of his property was invalid under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.
A. Validity of the Search Warrant on its Face
Dellinger contends that the search warrant is void on its face because the supporting affidavit does not create a nexus between his property and the murder of Griffin. We disagree.
An affidavit which establishes probable cause is an indispensable prerequisite to the issuance of a search warrant. See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-6-103 (1997); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 41(c). "An affidavit in support of a search warrant must set forth facts from which a reasonable conclusion might be drawn that the evidence is in the place to be searched." State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 572 (Tenn. 1993). "The nexus between the place to be searched and the items to be seized may be established by t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|