CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Criminal Procedure

Introduction to the case

A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Tyrone Ralph Wright, of one count of theft of property under $500 and one count of forgery over $1000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to an effective sentence of twelve years. The Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of an uncharged forgery; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to charge the jury on a lesser included offence; (4) the identification of the Defendant submitted at trial violated the “physical facts rule;” (5) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (6) he was denied his right to allocution at the sentencing hearing; and (7) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that there is no error in the judgments of the trial court, and we affirm the trial court's judgments. The trial court held a suppression hearing to address whether the police stop of the vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger was a legal stop. The parties presented the following evidence at the suppression hearing: Thomas Tharpe testified that on June 12, 2006, he was employed by the Benton County Sheriff's Office as a Drug Task Force agent. He recalled that, while working that day, he was patrolling Interstate 40 (“I-40”) in an unmarked SUV, which he parked in the median of the interstate. Agent Tharpe gave the following testimony as to his observation of a maroon Cadillac travelling on I-40: [The Cadillac] was heading eastbound towards Nashville, and it topped a hill. There is a truck, and it topped a hill about the same time, and then as soon as the Cadillac saw me, he immediately pulled in behind a semi tractor-trailer and was just glued to his bumper. Even [as] he passed me, I noticed [the Cadillac] was still just right on [the tractor-trailer bumper. I pulled up behind [the Cadillac] and conducted a traffic stop. Agent Tharpe testified that, before conducting the stop, he did not know the race of the occupants of the Cadillac. Agent Tharpe explained that he was focused on the traffic violation. Agent Tharpe said, “[The Cadillac] was following too closely. There is no way, if the truck had to brake for any reason, there is no way [the Cadillac] could have stopped in time.” Agent Tharpe recalled that the Cadillac was less than one car length in distance from the tractor-trailer (Baker, 1977).

Criminal procedure law

Criminal procedural law 19 Chapter 1 System mixed System inquisitive The characteristic of the adversarial system is the centrality of the debate (in which the public hearing, in contradiction of the parties, acquisition tests) and the absence of pre-established tests outside of the trial: the tests are, in ...