State v. Halake

47 Citing cases

  1. State v. Robinson

    No. M2019-00451-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 13, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Furthermore, this court has observed that, generally, testimony regarding blood spatter evidence requires an expert due to its complex nature and the opinion being predicated upon specialized knowledge unfamiliar to most lay persons. See State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d. 661, 670-71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). In so concluding, this court observed, "Blood spatter analysis is a complicated subject, as the analyst studies the blood spatter and determines what blow created the spatter, thereby recreating the events of the crime."

  2. State v. Stitts

    No. W2017-00209-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    1997); State v. Larkin, 443 S.W.3d 751, 815-16 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013); State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 669 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The jury's finding of premeditation was supported by the evidence presented at trial.

  3. State v. Davis

    No. W2017-00141-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 26, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    1997); State v. Larkin, 443 S.W.3d 751, 815-16 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013); State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 669 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1307(b)(1)(B) makes it an offense to be convicted of a felony drug offense and possess a firearm.

  4. State v. Boswell

    No. W2016-02591-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2017)

    Finally, the firing of multiple shots can allow a jury to infer premeditation. State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 669 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) ("Additionally, in the instant case the victim was shot multiple times, which although not indicative of premeditation when considered by itself, can be considered as evidence of premeditation in addition to other proof of premeditation.") The defendant argues there are insufficient facts to support the circumstances outlined in Bland.

  5. State v. Hooten

    No. M2012-00979-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 27, 2013)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 668 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (citing State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)).

  6. State v. Rochelle

    No. M2011-02639-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 25, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    The State contends that the defendant's objection was not timely. There is authority for the proposition that an objection must be contemporaneous to be timely. See State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 669 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001); State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).

  7. People v. Ramos

    396 P.3d 21 (Colo. App. 2012)   Cited 11 times

    ¶ 17 Additionally, numerous other jurisdictions have admitted expert testimony regarding blood spatter and transfer. See, e.g., State v. Goode, 341 N.C. 513, 461 S.E.2d 631, 641–42 (1995) (expert testimony admissible where officer testified that a lack of blood spatter on a suspect in a stabbing case was insufficient evidence to exculpate the suspect); State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 670–71 (Tenn.Crim.App.2001) (expert testimony admissible where officer compared blood spatter on defendant's pants to blood spatter the officer observed from other gunshot wounds in the past). ¶ 18 Here, the detective's testimony had the hallmarks of expert testimony, but the detective had not been qualified as an expert.

  8. State v. Hawkins

    No. W2010-01687-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 16, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 668 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (citing State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)).

  9. STATE v. WAIT

    No. E2010-01212-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 28, 2011)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that blood spatter testimony is within the purview of a forensic pathologist

    On appeal, the Defendant cites to State v. Halake, in support of his argument that Det. Wilson's testimony was erroneous and prejudicial, thus requiring a new trial. See 102 S.W.3d 661 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). In Halake, the police discovered two small round spots of the victim's blood on the defendant's pants legs.Id. at 669.

  10. Reynolds v. Hutchison

    Case No. 3:14-cv-01249 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 28, 2018)

    prior to the killing, the appellant's prior relationship with the victim, and the nature of the killing." State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tenn.2000); State v. Halake, 102 S.W.3d 661, 668 (Tenn.Crim.App.2001) (citing State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993)). Also, "[e]stablishment of a motive for the killing is a factor from which the jury may infer premeditation."