Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lillard v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

Decided April 30, 1975Published

1DissentGalbreath, Judge

I am unable to agree that under the facts of this case and the law of this State and the majority of other jurisdictions that the plaintiff in error may be punished twice for the forcible acts of intercourse resulting in his conviction. I must therefore respectfully dissent.

The general law in this State, it seems to me, was expressed by our Supreme Court after discussing the views pro and con on multiple convictions involving separate crimes committed in a single episode of criminality:

“While, in view of these authorities, we feel constrained to hold that in a case like this the jury may find…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Patmore v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Beasley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1951
  3. Peterson v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API