 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. King4/30/1999
peachment evidence pursuant to rule 609, Tenn. R. Evid., within trial court's discretion); State v. Baker, 785 S.W. 2d 132, 134 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989) (admission or exclusion of evidence left to discretion of trial court and will not be revisited on appeal short of abudabuse of that discretion).
Next, we take up the issue of whether the defense should have been allowed to question Coe about the underlying facts of Malone's prior crime involving the use of a gun. When Malone testified during the state's case-in-chief, he admitted he was incarcerated for crimes related to driving under the influence , marijuana and crack cocaine. He admitted he had juvenile adjudications for reckless endangerment, possession of a firearm and aggravated robbery. On cross-examination, he admitted he had previously stolen a .22 or .25 gun, and he had been given a .22 by someone nicknamed "Boo." He admitted that the reckless endangerment situation had occurred at the "strut" about one year earlier and involved the .22 from "Boo."
Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609(a) permits a party to attack a witness's credibility by asking the witness about certain criminal convictions on cross-examination. If the witness denies the conviction, it may be established through the public record. Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1). Under the rule, juvenile adjudications are generally not admissible; however, they may be admitted "if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult" and admission is necessary for a fair determination of the matter at bar. Tenn. R. Evid. 609(d). In this case, Malone testified on direct examination about his prior convictions and juvenile adjudications. On cross-examination, he testified in detail about two weapons he had possessed in the past and the fact that he had used a gun in an incident a year earlier at the "strut." The evidence elicited from Antoine Coe was, for the most part, cumulative of evidence already received from Malone himself. We are at a loss to see how any further details of Malone's prior adjudication involving the use of a gun were of value to the jury in assessing his credibility and necessary for a "fair determination" of the criminal case. See Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a), (d). Moreover, this evidence would have been cumulative of Malone's earlier testimony. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403 (exclusion of cumulative evidence).
V
Next, the defendants question whether the trial court erred in ruling admissible a letter containing apparent gang references which was found in the Lincoln convertible. Ultimately, however, the record reflects that the letter was not admitted, and the state voluntarily withdrew its request to cross-examine Devon King about it. Debiasi King was not cross-examined about the letter, and there is no allegation that Dewayne King did not testify in order to avoid cross-examination about this evidence. Thus, the ruling did not affect the outcome of the trial. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a). We fail to see that the issue is cognizable as an attack on the convictions before us; however, we will briefly address the issue to assist the trial court on remand.
Mario Brown testified during a jury-out hearing that the letter contained a rap lyric that he and his cousin Robert Smith had written. The composition is written in slang, and the letter contained distinctive characteristics, such as letters of the alphabet written upside down or with a pitchfork drawn through them. The witness denied the phrasing of the song and the distinctive writing had any gang-related significance. He denied being part of a gang, although he admitted he and the Kings were part of the "Eighth Street Crew" referenced in the rap
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|