From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Tucker

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Aug 7, 2017
No. M2016-01960-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2017)

Opinion

No. M2016-01960-CCA-R3-CD

08-07-2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BART LEO TUCKER


Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County
No. I-CR099094
Joseph Woodruff, Judge , dissenting

Because I believe the appellate record is incomplete for our review, I respectfully dissent. While I am certainly a proponent of records containing only what is essential for a meaningful review on appeal, when an appellant raises the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, as is the case here, all of the evidence presented at trial is needed. Here, Defendant has picked and chosen parts of only one of the State's witnesses for inclusion in the record, leaving us to speculate whether other evidence or witness testimony may have fulfilled the State's burden. Thus, the record does not convey a fair, accurate, and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issue of sufficiency of evidence. The record is not in keeping with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(b). I would grant Defendant's "(Conditional) Motion To Supplement The Record" and then proceed with an unabridged record.

/s/_________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE


Summaries of

State v. Tucker

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Aug 7, 2017
No. M2016-01960-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2017)
Case details for

State v. Tucker

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BART LEO TUCKER

Court:COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

Date published: Aug 7, 2017

Citations

No. M2016-01960-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2017)