Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Hall

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 1998No. 01S01-9703-CC-00068Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHolder, Justice

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the defendants’ convictions and sentences of death should be affirmed. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s analysis of aggravating circumstance Tenn.Code Ann. § 39 — 2—203(i)(8) in this case and in State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn.1996). I would reverse Odom on the issue of (i)(8) and hold that aggravating circumstance (i)(8) is applicable when a defendant commits mui’der during his or her escape from lawful confinement. I would hold that the phrase “during an escape from lawful confinement” denotes the time frame beginning…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. OdomTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  2. People v. DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. People v. DavisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  4. Tidwell v. CollinsTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  5. State v. WorkmanTennessee Supreme Court · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API