C. Michael Robbins Robbins Law Office 120 N. Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, Ok 877-254-2613

Criminal Law Procedure Cases

State v. Berrios , 235 S.W.3rd 99 (Tenn. 2007)

It is becoming more and more commonplace for officers making a routine traffic stop to remove the driver and/or passengers from the stopped vehicle to frisk or pat them down and to restrain them in the backseat of the officer's cruiser. While the driver and/or passengers are locked in the officer's vehicle, the officer is supposed to prepare any appropriate traffic citation and verify the driver's license.

Actually, the officer is waiting for the arrival of a drug detection dog to be "worked" over the stopped vehicle. An "alert" by the dog will provide probable cause for the officer to search the vehicle which is the real reason that he has stopped the vehicle. The law calls this a "pretextual" stop, and the Supreme Court has expressly approved of the practice.

During this waiting period, officers frequently obtain consent to search the stopped vehicle from the driver while he is locked in the backseat of the cruiser. This is what happened in the Berrios case.

On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that the officer who stopped Mr. Berrios for driving 53 in a 45 zone "violated the state and federal constitutions by frisking the defendant and placing him in the secured area of his patrol car." Specifically, the Tennessee high court ruled that the officer conducted an illegal search in reliance on the consent he unlawfully obtained from the driver after he had locked him in the backseat of the cruiser.


Walsh v. State , 166 S.W.3rd 641 (Tenn. 2005).

A courtroom officer intruded on a jury during its deliberations in a criminal trial in Memphis. Engaging the jurors in casual conversation, the officer told the jurors that they had to reach a verdict. The defendant sought a new trial on his appeal because of this improper interference with the independence of the jury. Legally, it is called an extraneous influence.

The trial court denied the defense motion for a new trial since it was persuaded that the officer's remarks had not influenced the verdict. Before the Tennessee Supreme Court, the question was whether the lower court had properly allowed the prosecution to introduce testimony from jurors about the effect of these remarks.

Rejecting two decisions by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals which had suggested that such questioning of a juror is permissible, the Tennessee high court ruled that no such questioning of a juror about what factors influenced the verdict is permissible.

This decision is a strong statement of a most fundamental principle of American law that jurors do not answer to anyone for their decision in a case. The officer's interaction with the jury was presumed to have improperly affected the verdict. Since the prosecution could not overcome this presumption, Mr. Walsh was granted a new trial.


State v. Dixon , 2001 WL 278092 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001)

In criminal law, offenses are established by proof of specific elements required by law to constitute the offense. If any one of these elements is missing in the proof, a conviction cannot stand. Robbery requires that personal property be taken from the person of another by violence or the threat of violence. Robbery requires that the "taking" of property be accomplished by this violence or threat of violence. Otherwise, the unlawful taking can be no more than theft.

In the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, the issue was whether the elements of robbery had been established by the proof relied on by the prosecution to support the conviction. The appellate court ruled that since the theft occurred before the assaultive conduct by Mr. Dixon in the parking lot, the robbery conviction could not stand. According to the court, a theft followed by an assault does not equal a robbery.

Dixon's conviction was reduced from a Class C felony of robbery to misdemeanor theft.


State v. Turner , 2000 WL 1473857 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001)

In a murder trial, the trial judge permitted the prosecutor to introduce evidence that the deceased owned a life insurance policy which named the defendant as beneficiary. Apparently, this was done to suggest a motive for the killing. The problem with the prosecution's theory was that there was no evidence which suggested the defendant had any knowledge of this insurance policy.

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the admission of the evidence about the insurance policy naming the defendant as beneficiary was error. This case illustrates that before anything may be admitted as evidence in a trial, it must tend to make the existence of a fact of consequence in the trial more or less probable than would be the case without the evidence.


State v. Harvest , 967 S.W.2nd 829 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1997)

Mr. Harvest spent most of his life confined in various state mental health institutions in Tennessee. During one of these confinements in 1986, he was charged with murder in connection with the death of his roommate. Based on the state supplied mental health examination, the trial court found that Mr. Harvest was not competent to stand trial and that an insanity defense was supported. Mr. Harvest was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to the custody of the state mental health system.

Eight years later in 1994, Mr. Harvest was again charged with murder in connection with the death of hisroommate. Mr. Robbins was appointed to represent Mr. Harvest at this second trial. Although Mr. Harvest's mental health condition had not changed during these eight years, state mental health professionals, including a number who had been involved in the 1986 case, offered the opinion that Mr. Harvest was now competent to stand trial, and further, that an insanity defense could not be supported.

The trial court denied the defense request for approval of funds to obtain an independent private mental examination, because at the time, Tennessee law authorized such funds only in a capital case. After Mr. Harvest was convicted of the non-capital offense of second degree murder, the defense appealed the denial of funding for an independent mental examination. While the case was pending on appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that such funding for services for an indigent defendant extends to both capital and non-capital cases. Since the defense had preserved its claim, Mr. Harvest benefited from the intervening Supreme Court decision.

Not surprisingly, when the independent mental examination was conducted, the result was identical to the 1986 examination. Mr. Harvest was found not competent to stand trial, and the insanity defense was supported. The trial court found Mr. Harvest not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to the custody of the state mental health system.

State v. Miller , 1996 WL 75344 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1996)

Mr. Miller was convicted and sentenced to a ten year prison term for a drug offense based on evidence seized from his vehicle during an illegal search in connection with a police roadblock. The trial court overruled the defense motion seeking suppression of the evidence based on the illegal search, but this decision was reversed by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals which ruled that the search violated the Fourth Amendment as well as the Tennessee Constitution. The charges were thereafter dismissed by the State of Tennessee.


State v. Britt , 1995 WL 437475 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1995)

After a transfer hearing in juvenile court, Mr. Britt was convicted as an adult for an offense committed while he was a minor. After his conviction was final, Mr. Britt filed a pro se petition to set aside his conviction and sentence. This petition was dismissed by the trial court because it was filed beyond the applicable period of limitation for such matters. Mr. Robbins was appointed to represent Mr. Britt regarding the appeal of this order of dismissal by the trial court.

Mr. Britt's petition was subject to a three year statute of limitation starting at the point when his criminal conviction became final. A Tennessee statute provided that a limitation period does not run during the minority of an affected person. Since Mr. Britt had filed his petition within three years of his attaining majority age, Mr. Robbins argued on the appeal that it was timely filed.

Persuaded by the briefing of this issue, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the lower court's order dismissing the petition. The appellate court ruled that Mr. Britt was entitled to rely on the statue which tolled the running of the limitation period during his minority. Mr. Britt was thereafter provided a hearing on his petition.

State v. Furlough , 797 S.W.2nd 631 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1990)

This is one of the early published decisions in Tennessee law dealing with the battered spouse syndrome. Ms. Furlough was convicted of murder in connection with the death of her husband. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

The principal importance of this case is the holding by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals that the defendant may introduce evidence of violent acts or threats of the deceased toward other persons, even where unknown by the defendant at the time of the fatal encounter, to corroborate the defendant's claim of self defense based on the deceased being the first aggressor in the fatal conflict.

Contact the Robbins Law Office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma to speak with an experienced lawyer • Free initial consultation • Off-site and jail visits • Extensive appeals experience in state and federal administrative hearings

Robbins Law Office
120 N. Robinson Ave.
Suite W2725
Oklahoma City, OK  73102
Toll Free: 877-254-2613
Telephone: 405-600-3051
Fax: 405-600-7354
E-mail

Robbins Law Office is located in Downtown Oklahoma City, OK, and is available to serve clients throughout Central Oklahoma, including Metro OKC and Norman. A partial listing of counties includes: Oklahoma County, Cleveland County, Canadian County, Kingfisher County, Logan County, Lincoln County, and Pottawatomie County.