Opinion ID: 1670672
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: contentions of the amicus curiae

Text: The Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers was permitted to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the position of the defendant-appellant. The main thrust of the amicus' brief is that application of the harmless error rule is inappropriate in this case. Rule 36(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure is quoted: (b) Effect of error.  A final judgment from which relief is available and otherwise appropriate shall not be set aside unless, considering the whole record, error involving a substantial right more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process. [Emphasis added.] The amicus curiae chose to leave to the parties the question of whether the error in this appeal probably affected the judgment; and addressed their argument to the issue of prejudice to the judicial process, contending that the error in the instant case is of this systemic type. The argument is made that the harmless error analysis suggested by the Court of Criminal Appeals would have the effect of rendering T.C.A. Section 40-35-201(b) meaningless. The argument is made that if the jury is mistakenly instructed that a conviction will result in a shorter sentence than in fact will be imposed, the likelihood of conviction of the crime charged in the indictment increases and the chance that the jury will convict of a lesser included offense decreases commensurately; and where the evidence makes out a close case, this danger is exacerbated. It is further submitted that because T.C.A. Section 40-35-201(b) contains the mandate shall, that a failure to follow the procedure set out therein is a due process constitutional right violation; and to be harmless error, it must be demonstrated to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The amicus departs from the issue accepted for decision by this court, and asks that consideration be given to fashioning an appropriate remedy where the prosecution repeatedly ignores mandatory procedural requirements applicable to criminal trials. We limit our decision to the issue accepted for decision.