Court Opinion

ID: 9683125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:22:58.359008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:45.219690
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
FONES, Chief Justice.
The State argues in its petition to rehear that it is permissible, in view of the last paragraph of T.C.A. § 40-2707, for prosecuting attorneys to argue to the jury the various parole possibilities available to defendants after they have been sentenced and incarcerated.
The last paragraph of T.C.A. § 40-2707, which requires the trial judge to charge the jury with provisions of the Code dealing with parole and honor time, did not become effective until May 4, 1973. Act 1973, ch. 163, § 2. This was after the trial in this case, which was held on March 23, 1973.
The reference, by implication, to parole possibilities was no more than a cap on the iceberg of improprieties committed during the argument of this case.
The petition to rehear is denied.
COOPER, HENRY, BROCK and HARBI-SON, JJ., concur.