Court Opinion

ID: 9778170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:34:42.139446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.316556
License: Public Domain

DWYER, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
When the prosecutor in his closing remarks argued that all officials associated with this case, legislature, governor, sheriff, grand jury and judge, had done their duty, I must concede that those remarks exceeded the bounds of legitimate argument. While it is true that this argument did not indicate all of these officials found the appellant guilty, I think an indirect implication of guilt was a direct inference that the jury could infer from the remarks. I would, however, and do differ from the majority in reversing and remanding this case for retrial.
With the jury finding the appellant guilty of a lesser offense than murder in the first degree, and with ample evidence to support premeditation found in this record, I would, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, reduce the punishment from twenty years to ten years, if the State accedes. In short, I would invoke the thinking of our Supreme Court found in Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn.1975), and subject to the consent of the State, reduce the punishment to the statutory minimum of ten years. In all other assignments I concur in the views as expressed by the majority.