State v. Cammon

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jones

    No. M2015-00657-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 14, 2016)

    Accordingly, we conclude that no reasonable jury could conclude that the Defendant committed an assault by extremely offensive or provocative physical contact. See, e.g., State v. Michael Cammon, No. M2001-00592-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31414089, at *3-4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 25, 2002) (concluding that a lesser-included instruction on assault by extremely offensive or provocative touching was not warranted were there was proof that the deputy sustained bodily injuries—minor cuts and abrasions, a chipped tooth, and bite marks on his hands—during the struggle with the defendant). The Defendant, using a tree branch, struck the victim's backside, leaving visible bruising.

  2. State v. Chisenhall

    No. M2003-00956-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jun. 3, 2004)   Cited 22 times
    Examining the language in section 39-13-501 and concluding that the statute merely requires touching that may be "reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification" and that there is no requirement that the defendant become sexually aroused or gratified

    Accordingly, even if corroboration of the victim's testimony were required, the appellant has waived this issue on appeal. See id.; see also State v. Shawn Rafael Bough, No. E2002-00717-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 50798, at *11 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Knoxville, Jan. 12, 2004); State v. Michael Cammon, No. M2001-00592-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31414089, at *2 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Nashville, Oct. 25, 2002). This issue is without merit.

  3. State v. Bough

    No. E2002-00717-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2004)   Cited 6 times

    Accordingly, he has waived this issue on appeal. See id.; see also State v. Michael Cammon, No. M2001-00592-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31414089, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 25, 2002).