 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bondurant3/20/1998
e on a legitimate issue in the trial being considered of greater worth than the danger of its prejudicial effect. Accordingly, evidence of prior bad acts may be used for a purpose other than to show a defendant's propensity to commit the crime for which he is charged, such as to demonstrate identity, intent, motive or a common scheme or plan, opportunity, or rebuttal of mistake or accident. State v. Drinkard, 909 S.W.2d 13, 16 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b).
In order to determine the admissibility of such evidence, compliance with the procedures provided in Rule 404(b) is mandatory. Without the trial court conducting the required analysis on the record, particularly regarding the existence of a material issue and the probative value of the evidence outweighing the danger of unfair prejudice, we cannot properly review its admissibility as an exception to the rule of exclusion. West, 844 S.W.2d at 150.
After defense counsel raised the issue during cross-examination, the trial court properly determined at the jury-out hearings that Denise could explain why she was afraid of the defendant and why she delayed contacting authorities concerning this murder. It was also proper for the trial court to determine that Denise could explain why she met with authorities on numerous occasions. She was questioned extensively about these matters during cross-examination, and the state was entitled to explain.
Moreover, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 103(a), the admission or exclusion of evidence is not a basis for error unless the ruling affects a substantial right of the party. We find that even if the trial court did err in allowing this testimony to be introduced, no substantial right of the appellant was affected thereby. In light of the convincing evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error in the admission of this testimony was harmless. See State v. Shelley, 628 S.W.2d 436, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981); Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b). This issue, therefore, lacks merit.
Next, the defendant contends that it was error to allow Denise and Rodney Randolph to testify that Terri Lynn Clark, the defendant's alleged alibi witness, was found dead at the Elkton farmhouse where he and his brother lived. In addition, he asserts that it was prosecutorial misconduct for the state to address the location of Clark's body during closing argument. Finally, the defendant contends that defense counsel's failure to object to this testimony and argument constituted ineffective assistance.
On direct examination, Jerry Dickey, the arson investigator, testified that when he took the defendant's statement, the defendant told him that he had been with Terri Lynn Clark during the weekend when the victim disappeared. Dickey advised the defendant that he would have to talk to Clark to verify the defendant's statement. He then testified:
Q. All right. And where did you wind up going to try to contact Terri Lynn Clark, sir?
A. To Elkton, Tennessee.
Q. And where in Elkton, Tennessee?
A. To what was known at the time, I think, as Pete Bondurant's house.
Q. And did you find Terri Lynn Clark?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you take a statement from her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why not?
A. She was dead.
Subsequently, during the state's cross-examination of defense witness, Rodney Randolph, the state asked him why he stopped living with Pete and the defendant at Elkton. Randolph responded:
A. Well, I had some clothes and stuff down there that -- work clothes that I stopped and changed clothes and stuff, as I was going to Ardmore, as
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 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|