 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henderson3/7/2001
long as it met all statutory requirements. Id. at 922. Thus, we conclude that because Widener was accompanied by Captain McMahan when he executed the warrant for Dellinger's property and the warrant met all statutory requirements, the execution of the search warrant was valid.
Dellinger also contends that Gray's consent to search the trailer in which she was living was invalid merely because it was given to an officer from the Blount County Sheriff's Department. Dellinger has cited no authority for this proposition, and we conclude that the fact that the consent was given to officers from Blount County is completely irrelevant in this case. This issue has no merit.
F. The Items Seized in the Search
Dellinger contends that because the warrant only authorized a search for a twelve gauge shotgun and Remington Peters Brand twelve gauge "00" shotgun shells, the seizure of all other brands of shotgun shells was invalid. We disagree.
As this Court has previously stated, " here is no prohibition against the seizure of other property not specifically mentioned in a valid search warrant, if such is relevant to the crimes suggested by the warrant." State v. Wright, 618 S.W.2d 310, 318 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981); see Vermilye v. State, 584 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979). Because Griffin was killed by a shot from a twelve gauge shotgun, it is obvious that all twelve gauge shotgun shells and hulls were relevant to the crime, no matter what brand they were. Thus, the officers properly seized the shells and hulls. This issue has no merit.
X. EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES
Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence about the altercation that occurred on the Alcoa Highway, the burning of Griffin's trailer, and the murder of Branam. Specifically, Appellants contend that this evidence was inadmissible because its only purpose was to show that they had violent character traits and even if it had been relevant to some other purpose, its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. We disagree.
Under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity with the character trait. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes. The conditions which must be satisfied before allowing such evidence are:
(1) The court upon request must hold a hearing outside the jury's presence;
(2) The court must determine that a material issue exists other than conduct conforming with a character trait and must upon request state on the record the material issue, the ruling, and the reasons for admitting the evidence; and
(3) The court must exclude the evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b).
A fourth prerequisite to admission is that the court find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the other crime. Tenn. R. Evid. 404 (Advisory Commission Comments); State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 654 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Parton, 694 S.W.2d 299, 303 (Tenn. 1985). When a trial court substantially complies with the procedural requirements of the rule, its determination will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d at 652. Where a court fails to substantially comply with these requirements, the court's decision is afforded no deference. Id.
A. The Altercation on the Alcoa Highway and the Burning of Griffin's Trailer
The trial court ruled that evidence about the altercation on the Alcoa Highway and the burning of
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.
|
|