{"count":159485,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNi40NDA2MTUmcz02NDYxMTM0JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMjcmcD0y&q=IMPEACHMENT+OF+WITNESSES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4675527/exclusion-of-agency-counsel-from-congressional-depositions-in-the/","attorney":"","caseName":"Exclusion of Agency Counsel from Congressional Depositions in the Impeachment Context","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4675527,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-11-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":16422316,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:07.520880Z","date_created":"2019-11-04T17:01:31.810356Z","score":{"bm25":82.06234}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109101,6953569],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1214996/download","id":4452780,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/11/01/exclusion_of_agency_counsel_from_congressional_depositions_in_the.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:02:40.587356Z","date_created":"2019-11-04T17:01:31.818929Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"51dd614325fd7960ce7c281807de4532cc27ad94","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n         Exclusion of Agency Counsel from Congressional\n             Depositions in the Impeachment Context\nCongressional committees participating in an impeachment inquiry may not validly\n  compel executive branch witnesses to testify about matters that potentially involve\n  information protected by executive privilege without the assistance of agency counsel.\n  Congressional subpoenas that purport to require executive branch witnesses to appear\n  without agency counsel in these","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4452780],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Congressional committees participating in an impeachment inquiry may not validly compel executive branch witnesses to testify about matters that potentially involve information protected by executive privilege without the assistance of agency counsel. Congressional subpoenas that purport to require executive branch witnesses to appear without agency counsel in these circumstances are legally invalid and are not subject to civil or criminal enforcement."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4713838/house-committees-authority-to-investigate-for-impeachment/","attorney":"","caseName":"House Committees' Authority to Investigate for Impeachment","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4713838,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-01-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":16730320,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:08.078825Z","date_created":"2020-01-20T19:01:11.959112Z","score":{"bm25":42.460136}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[90311,93291,100996,101906,107259,109101,282810,362299,9045574,9418565,9420388,9420883,9421469,9422642,9476961,9808243],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1236346/download","id":4493615,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/01/19/house_committees_authority_to_investigate_for_impeachment.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:30:58.802563Z","date_created":"2020-01-20T19:01:11.963438Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"26f179c84bb00e5c67d0baf04ca7066b882c8ab1","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n                    House Committees’ Authority to\n                     Investigate for Impeachment\nThe House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an\n  impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before\n  the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the\n  House’s power of impeachment.\nThe House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with\n  impeachment-related ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4493615],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House's power of impeachment. The House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with impeachment-related subpoenas issued by House committees before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect. The House's adoption of Resolution 660 on October 31, 2019, did not alter the legal status of those subpoenas, because the resolution did not ratify or otherwise address their terms."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10378945/ernest-butler-v-state-of-tennessee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Ernest Butler v. State of Tennessee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10378945,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2024-00996-CCA-R3-PC","docket_id":69894614,"judge":"Judge Matthew J. Wilson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-15T17:50:07.459150Z","date_created":"2025-04-15T17:50:07.330165Z","score":{"bm25":32.376705}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[111170,112807,1043900,1043993,1044033,1057625,1057640,1057691,1058120,1060421,1060512,1060708,1060938,1061016,1071361,1568514,1616611,1667196,1678167,1766261,1769614,2165868,2363351,2372597,2374207,2437821,2459031,5064580,5091079,5108324],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/ButlerErnestOPN.pdf","id":10845533,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/15/ernest_butler_v._state_of_tennessee.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-03T21:39:53.820111Z","date_created":"2025-04-15T17:50:07.338219Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8b144672163d8d5f29eaa2020cd0359725b2a921","snippet":"                                                                                            04/15/2025\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                           Assigned on Briefs March 4, 2025\n\n                 ERNEST BUTLER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE\n\n                  Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County\n                      No. 15-01445       Lee V. Coffee, Judge\n                      ___________________________________\n\n   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10845533],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Petitioner, Ernest Butler, was convicted of first degree felony murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus fifteen years. This court affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's methods for refreshing and impeaching a testifying witness, and for failing to request a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. He also argues cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10382387/state-of-tennessee-v-kimberly-m-smart/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Kimberly M. Smart","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10382387,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2023-01688-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":69924863,"judge":"Judge W. Mark Ward","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-22T16:15:24.995266Z","date_created":"2025-04-22T16:15:24.948714Z","score":{"bm25":31.538654}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[222130,1043881,1057579,1057584,1057625,1057701,1057985,1058311,1058370,1058663,1060705,1073391,1626444,1667124,1719300,1730266,2166066,2365958,2392223,2393640,2418361,2419684,2912095,3216903,4089803,4280365,4363268,4710725,5042382,5057093,5097108,8301372],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Opinion%20-%20State%20of%20Tennessee%20v.%20Kimberly%20M.%20Smart%20-%20E2023-01688-CCA-R3-CD.pdf","id":10848975,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/22/state_of_tennessee_v._kimberly_m._smart.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T19:24:24.570099Z","date_created":"2025-04-22T16:15:24.957778Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c816f49f40028a4218a1e1449191c1011b393823","snippet":"IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\nAT KNOXVILLE\nFebruary 25, 2025 Session\n\nSTATE OF TENNESSEE v. KIMBERLY M. SMART\n\nAppeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County\n\nNo. 313010 Boyd M. Patterson, Judge FILED\n\nNo. E2023-01688-CCA-R3-CD\n\nThe Defendant, Kimberly M. Smart, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of reckless\naggravated assault, for which she received a sentence of three years’ incarceration. On\nappeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in admitting extr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10848975],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant, Kimberly M. Smart, was convicted by a Hamilton County Jury of reckless aggravated assault, for which she received a sentence of three years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement for impeachment, (2) the trial court erred in admitting a body camera recording depicting the victim shortly after she was stabbed, and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by attempting to shift the burden of proof to the Defendant during closing and rebuttal arguments. Discerning no error, we affirm."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9386496/garry-v-borger/","attorney":"","caseName":"Garry v. Borger","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 Ohio 905"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":9386496,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C-220069","docket_id":67087459,"judge":"Zayas","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:03:02.919910Z","date_created":"2023-03-24T14:07:02.774214Z","score":{"bm25":30.992167}},"neutralCite":"2023 Ohio 905","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2697256,3211939,3687580,3745335,3752293,4234217,5131999,6500289,8621660],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2023/2023-Ohio-905.pdf","id":9381972,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/22/garry_v._borger.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:46:55.836306Z","date_created":"2023-03-24T14:07:02.782400Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"53b7853407a87743792d4ad40b2f25f0704fd36c","snippet":"         [Cite as Garry v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-905.]\n                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                   FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n                        HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\n\n\n PATRICIA GARRY,                                     :   APPEAL NO. C-220069\n                                                         TRIAL NOS. A-1800062\n         Plaintiff-Appellant,                        :              A-1806668\n\n   vs.                                               :   O P I N I","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9381972],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"JURY SELECTION — IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESS — REBUTTAL TESTIMONY — CUMULATIVE ERROR: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to excuse two jurors for cause, as the decision to remove a juror for cause is within the sound discretion of the trial court which determined that the prospective jurors could adequately fulfill their duties. Where the applicable requirements under the Rules of Evidence were not met because defendant was not questioned about his statement so he never denied making a statement, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rebuttal witness to impeach defendant's testimony. Where the case lacked numerous errors that deprived plaintiff of a fair trial, the plaintiff failed to establish cumulative error."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5095302/marc-baechtle-v-state-of-tennessee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Marc Baechtle v. State of Tennessee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5095302,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-09-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2020-01429-CCA-R3-PC","docket_id":60400753,"judge":"Judge Camille R. McMullen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:42:32.785703Z","date_created":"2021-09-21T19:16:50.301950Z","score":{"bm25":30.496014}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8286,"cites":[111170,1044033,1060440,1060484,1061016,1769614,2277242],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/baechtlemarcopn_0.pdf","id":4912687,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/21/marc_baechtle_v._state_of_tennessee.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:41:55.325463Z","date_created":"2021-09-21T19:16:50.315946Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"82e298bed58fc1f05165f296572f1d5b8865c8e6","snippet":"                                                                                          09/21/2021\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                        Assigned on Briefs September 8, 2021\n\n                MARC BAECHTLE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE\n\n                 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County\n                  No. 12-01214       J. Robert Carter, Jr., Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4912687],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Petitioner, Marc Baechtle, was convicted of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and rape. The trial court dismissed the aggravated sexual battery and rape convictions due to statute of limitations and ultimately imposed a 25-year sentence for the rape of a child conviction. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that trial counsel advised him not to testify and failed to impeach a witness. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8365841/steven-jeffrey-pike-v-state-of-tennessee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Steven Jeffrey Pike v. State of Tennessee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8365841,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-10-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2021-01055-CCA-R3-PC","docket_id":65546334,"judge":"Judge Camille R. McMullen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:41:14.070929Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T22:08:13.085448Z","score":{"bm25":29.753742}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8286,"cites":[1043889,1043907,1044033,1057579,1057949,1061016,1651862,1726943,1769614,2165868,2168477,2274334,2277242,4464584,5108553,9423348,9429592,9432240,9433818,9524215,9524412,9558542,9627231,9641144],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/steven_jeffrey_pike_opinion.pdf","id":8334803,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/10/17/steven_jeffrey_pike_v._state_of_tennessee.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T03:37:51.236819Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T22:08:13.095624Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"50313f6b1d8ea5a0a83690f65557d0c4285e03bf","snippet":"                                                                                             10/17/2022\n           IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                            AT KNOXVILLE\n                               Assigned on Briefs August 23, 2022\n\n                STEVEN JEFFREY PIKE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE\n\n                      Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County\n                             No. 112096 Kyle A. Hixson, Judge\n                         ________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8334803],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Petitioner, Steven Jeffrey Pike, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his post-conviction petition, wherein he challenged his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that (1) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to impeach a witness for the State with the witness's prior statement to police (2) appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to raise on appeal the trial court's limitation of defense expert's testimony (3) appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to raise on appeal that the Petitioner's involuntary statements constituted a due process violation not subject to harmless error analysis and (4) the multiple errors committed by trial counsel and appellate counsel constituted prejudicial error in the aggregate.1 After review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4583097/adonis-lashawn-mclemore-v-state-of-tennessee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Adonis Lashawn McLemore v. State of Tennessee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4583097,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-01-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2018-00351-CCA-R3-PC","docket_id":8514243,"judge":"Judge Camille R. McMullen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:25:56.038705Z","date_created":"2019-01-18T21:42:38.742677Z","score":{"bm25":29.65592}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8286,"cites":[111170,1057609,1057691,1057949,1061016,1521972,1524671,1618013,1678167,1769614,2168477,2437821],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/mclemore.adonis.opn_.pdf","id":4360350,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/01/18/adonis_lashawn_mclemore_v._state_of_tennessee.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:58:30.637903Z","date_created":"2019-01-18T21:42:38.752912Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5162e2219022993c3c9424d3a125a0a461169da0","snippet":"                                                                                             01/18/2019\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT NASHVILLE\n                         Assigned on Briefs December 11, 2018\n\n       ADONIS LASHAWN MCLEMORE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE\n\n                Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County\n                    No. 2011-D-3013 Mark J. Fishburn, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4360350],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Petitioner, Adonis Lashawn McLemore, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to impeach a witness, to present an alibi witness, and to rebut the State's expert witness. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4378929/people-v-leverton/","attorney":"Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Lisa K. Michaels, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Katayoun A. Donnelly, Alternative Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant","caseName":"People v. Leverton","caseNameFull":"The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randall Eric LEVERTON, Defendant-Appellant","citation":["2017 COA 34","405 P.3d 402","2017 WL 1089557","2017 Colo. App. LEXIS 336"],"citeCount":10,"cluster_id":4378929,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-03-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals 15CA0050","docket_id":4640353,"judge":"Berger, Dailey, Jones","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:28:14.509453Z","date_created":"2017-03-28T19:05:36.349121Z","score":{"bm25":29.054817}},"neutralCite":"2017 COA 34","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108189,108416,111535,111992,134724,145451,1062840,1179200,1221932,1428250,1466054,2078278,2143266,2286441,2304483,2465583,2520328,2632485,4030790,5156615,5158083,5158950,5159302,5177521,5177641,5177675],"download_url":"http://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/Sections/Opinions/3-27-17/15CA0050-PD.pdf?ver=2017-03-28-120927-593","id":4156182,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/03/23/people_v._leverton.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:36:43.837259Z","date_created":"2017-03-28T19:05:36.356285Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9a3b65fdabd722591b8c850505dad71c4b5e57fa","snippet":"\n\n\n  Opinion by\n \n\n  JUDGE BERGER\n \n\n  ¶ 1 A jury convicted defendant, Randall Eric Leverton, of theft by receiving and possession of drug paraphernalia. He appeals, contending the trial- court erred by (1) joining the two offenses in a single trial and not allowing him to plead guilty to the paraphernalia charge before joining them and (2) admitting into evidence two wit","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4156182],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"Theft by Receiving—Possession—Drug Paraphernalia—Mandatory Joinder—Double Jeopardy—Prior Statements—Impeachment—Evidence","syllabus":"Theft by Receiving—Possession—Drug Paraphernalia—Mandatory Joinder—Double Jeopardy—Prior Statements—Impeachment—Evidence. The victim started her car and left it running while she went inside her home to retrieve some belongings. When she returned to where the car had been parked, the car was gone. She immediately reported the theft to the police. A few days later, a police officer pulled over the stolen car. Leverton and two women were passengers. Leverton told the officer that the car belonged to the victim, whom he claimed was his girlfriend. Leverton was arrested and transported to the police station. After removing Leverton from the police vehicle, the officer discovered a pipe typically used to smoke methamphetamine. Leverton was initially charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. Shortly thereafter in a separate case he was charged with theft by receiving. The cases were later joined on the prosecution's motion, over defendant's objection. The women passengers testified at Leverton's trial and were questioned by the prosecutor about oral statements they allegedly had made to police following their arrests. Leverton was convicted as charged. On appeal, Leverton argued that the trial court erred when it rejected his guilty plea on the paraphernalia charge and then permitted the prosecution to add that charge to the theft complaint because the result was that he was effectively charged with the same offense in two separate cases. He claimed that this violated Colorado's mandatory joinder statute and the Double Jeopardy Clauses of both the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions. The Court of Appeals noted that Leverton did not allege that he was reprosecuted for either offense after he was convicted or that he was sentenced or otherwise punished multiple times for those offenses. Here, the prosecution moved to join the two offenses prior to Leverton's attempt to plead guilty to the paraphernalia charge. The court's procedure met the purpose of the mandatory joinder statute, to prevent successive prosecutions, and Leverton raised no claim of unfair prejudice resulting from the procedure. Further, the court acted within its discretion when it rejected Leverton's guilty plea to the petty offense. And because the court had not accepted Leverton's guilty plea on the paraphernalia charge, double jeopardy had not attached and there was no due process violation. Leverton next argued that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to examine the two women witnesses about their prior statements to the police, alleging this evidence was inadmissible and violated his confrontation rights. Both women testified that they did not remember what happened the night the stolen car was pulled over, nor did they remember any statements they made to the police. To impeach the witnesses, the prosecutor was entitled to confront them with the exact language of their prior inconsistent statements. Therefore, the court properly admitted the statements. Leverton also argued that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed theft or possessed drug paraphernalia. A few days after the car had been reported stolen, the police found Leverton sitting in the car's front passenger seat. Though Leverton told the police that the car had been given to him by the victim, his statement was directly refuted by the victim's testimony that she had never met him. This and other evidence was sufficient to support the theft by receiving conviction. There was also sufficient evidence concerning the pipe found in the police vehicle for the jury to convict Leverton of possession of drug paraphernalia. Leverton also argued that his convictions were based on his associations with other persons. Having found that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence proving that Leverton and not some other person committed the crimes, the Court rejected this argument. The judgment was affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4856313/state-of-tennessee-v-william-eugene-moone/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. William Eugene Moone","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4856313,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-02-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2019-01865-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":59250924,"judge":"Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:42:51.735141Z","date_created":"2021-02-12T22:12:33.214087Z","score":{"bm25":28.852583}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8285,"cites":[108590,110138,112780,1057558,1057616,1057682,1057883,1058342,1060392,1060568,1060945,1075997,1518420,1518815,1628439,1860692,2369701,2418960,2436045,2451554,2456151],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/moon.william.opn_.pdf","id":4660092,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/02/12/state_of_tennessee_v._william_eugene_moone.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-28T21:25:27.814234Z","date_created":"2021-02-12T22:12:33.223554Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a833111dbc918e2179a7ef5fe9407653fd26576c","snippet":"                                                                                            02/12/2021\n             IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                              AT NASHVILLE\n                          December 8, 2020 Session\n\n              STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM EUGENE MOON\n\n                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County\n                        No. 44,905F L. Craig Johnson, Judge\n                      ___________________________________\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4660092],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"A Coffee County jury convicted William Eugene Moon, Defendant, of attempted second degree murder and unlawful employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the improper impeachment of a defense witness, that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, the judgments of the circuit court are affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6480961/state-of-tennessee-v-vana-mustafa/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Vana Mustafa","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6480961,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2020-01060-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":63406510,"judge":"Judge Jill Bartee Ayers","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:50:35.290648Z","date_created":"2022-06-23T19:09:44.723729Z","score":{"bm25":28.770933}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[398265,1043879,1043928,1043997,1044002,1057558,1057566,1057579,1057596,1057625,1057682,1057701,1057821,1058169,1058212,1058264,1060502,1060512,1060574,1060964,1060973,1080076,1080917,1083474,1083679,1354429,1424060,1463856,1500882,1564422,1651862,1658654,1667196,1674551,1728598,1747577,1769614,1789328,1799723,2277050,2277242,2337234,2420356,2431765,2454611,2462368,2789547,4108644,5043103,5108553,9423455,9425169,9427680,9429592,9430412,9431168,9523145,9523249,9523270,9523387,9524165,9524180,9524208,9524229,9524294,9524359,9524365,9524418,9524420,9662547,9666836,9666910,9763520,9764152,9807913,9812697],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/mustafa_vana-_filed_opn.pdf","id":6353094,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/06/23/state_of_tennessee_v._vana_mustafa.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T19:31:41.731528Z","date_created":"2022-06-23T19:09:44.731581Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"18725f6672a739a5c4f98313be99459c3b0b5dac","snippet":"                                                                                               06/23/2022\n           IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                            AT NASHVILLE\n               February 9, 2022 Session Heard at Lipscomb University1\n\n                  STATE OF TENNESSEE v. VANA MUSTAFA\n\n                 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County\n                     No. 2017-A-393    Mark J. Fishburn, Judge\n                      __________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6353094],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Defendant, Vana Mustafa, was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder and received a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction the trial court failed to fully charge the jury as to the law concerning self-defense the trial court erred by requiring him to provide his list of witness's statements to the State at the close of the State's proof that he was denied the constitutional right to present a defense because the trial court excluded testimony by his expert witness the trial court erred by excluding his expert witness from the courtroom during trial the trial court erred by limiting impeachment of a State's witness the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial he should be granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence his life sentence is unconstitutional he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and he is entitled to a new trial because the cumulative effect of errors denied him a fair trial. Following our review of the entire record, oral argument, and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10838267/julie-muth-goodman-v-jason-nemes-in-his-official-capacity-as-chair-of-the/","attorney":"","caseName":"Julie Muth Goodman v. Jason Nemes, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the House of Representatives Impeachment Committee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10838267,"court":"Kentucky Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ky.","court_id":"ky","court_jurisdiction":"S","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-04-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2026-SC-0124","docket_id":73151035,"judge":"Lambert","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-06T18:06:19.800388Z","date_created":"2026-04-06T18:06:19.644382Z","score":{"bm25":28.288496}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4526,"cites":[84759,84935,95854,109380,1377672,1686587,1908820,2127431,2426705,2446605,2465018,3442641,3443817,3446593,3449678,3951397,5014568,5062054,5063007,5112905,5115398,5283039,5283672,6420866,7129095,7130267,7132639,7133133,7140751,7146240,7148852,7379834,8221228,8221236,8221298,8588156,8588182,9420759,9422369,9423382,9424080,9425486,9432714,9434585,9460437,9655213,9668951,9771687],"download_url":"https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/6ce15e3bf08986dc00523cf2685082b2db948b2e19fcc2b98a4bcfd34dc7d029/download","id":11305607,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/04/06/julie_muth_goodman_v._jason_nemes_in_his_official_capacity_as_chair_of_the.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-06T18:06:53.545474Z","date_created":"2026-04-06T18:06:19.705839Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"027e6ac7fd43109cc4f71f85c6d07ca70a524c34","snippet":"                                  SPECIAL RENDITION: APRIL 6, 2026\n                                                TO BE PUBLISHED\n\n\n           Supreme Court of Kentucky\n                         2026-SC-0122-I\n\nJULIE MUTH GOODMAN                                        MOVANT\n\n\n\n               ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS\nV.                      NO. 2026-CA-0321\n             FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 26-CI-00272\n\n\n\nJASON NEMES, IN HIS OFFICIAL                          RESPONDENTS\nCAPACITY AS ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11305607],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4890718/state-of-tennessee-v-shanthony-mays/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Shanthony Mays","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4890718,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-06-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2020-00201-CCA-R3-PC","docket_id":59976390,"judge":"Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:51:35.391079Z","date_created":"2021-06-10T21:15:04.103255Z","score":{"bm25":28.170244}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8291,"cites":[109133,109965,110256,111170,112807,118339,708222,1057691,1057707,1057949,1060512,1061016,1568514,1670946,1678216,1730437,2277242,2388301,2459031,2468427],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/maysshanthonyopn.pdf","id":4694497,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/06/10/state_of_tennessee_v._shanthony_mays.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:05:03.162116Z","date_created":"2021-06-10T21:15:04.109762Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3bbf0ed65b0eae9c9ec2bed663c41f4fcd49278c","snippet":"                                                                                           06/10/2021\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                         Assigned on Briefs February 3, 2021\n\n               STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHANTHONY MAYS\n\n                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Obion County\n                    No. CC-18-CR-173     Donald E. Parish, Judge\n\n\n\n                             No. W2020-00201-CCA-R3-PC\n\n\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4694497],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Petitioner, Shanthony Mays, filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon and the resulting twelve-year sentence. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges the following: (1) that he provided new evidence establishing an improper jury venire (2) that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to provide statistical information to show the systematic exclusion of African-Americans in the jury venire of Obion County (3) that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly examine the State's witnesses regarding the admissibility of evidence and impeachment (4) that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a pretrial motion regarding the chain of custody for \"tainted evidence\" and (5) that the post-conviction court should have given more weight to the co-defendant's recantation of his trial testimony. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the Petitioner relief."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10298276/state-of-tennessee-v-jeremy-james-dalton/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Jeremy James Dalton","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10298276,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2023-01588-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":69486532,"judge":"Judge Timothy L. Easter","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-20T16:16:44.752790Z","date_created":"2024-12-20T16:16:44.667305Z","score":{"bm25":28.102798}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8283,"cites":[105912,106862,107252,109309,109643,110138,111614,111992,134724,147529,1056916,1082966,1354429,1449376,1506546,1516950,1518439,1525276,2276003,2413820,2431765,2438211],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/E-SIGNED-M2023-1588-CCA-DALTON.pdf","id":10764864,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/20/state_of_tennessee_v._jeremy_james_dalton.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:33:35.560839Z","date_created":"2024-12-20T16:16:44.685682Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bdda207afb270ddabee4198987126942aabcaec6","snippet":"                                                                                                     12/20/2024\n           IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                            AT NASHVILLE\n                           Assigned on Briefs December 10, 2024\n\n             STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEREMY JAMES DALTON\n\n                  Appeal from the Criminal Court for Fentress County\n                       No. 19-85 Zachary R. Walden, Judge1\n                       __________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10764864],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder and sentenced to forty years in incarceration after stabbing his neighbor, the victim, several times. Defendant represented himself at trial and now represents himself on appeal. He raises a variety of issues including: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the preliminary hearing testimony of the victim; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress; (4) whether the trial court should have granted a continuance; (5) whether the trial court erred in excluding a statement; (6) whether the trial court improperly allowed a witness to use a \"script\"; (7) whether the State violated Brady, Napue, or Giglio; (8) whether the State improperly used Defendant's prior convictions for impeachment; (9) whether Defendant was denied access to court; (10) whether the trial court properly limited Defendant's use of an intake video; (11) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury; (12) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (13) whether Defendant was denied compulsory process; (14) whether the trial court should have recused itself; (15) whether the appellate record was transmitted in error; (16) whether the sentence is excessive; and (17) whether cumulative error requires reversal of the conviction. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4604767/state-of-tennessee-v-roddarous-marcus-bond/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Roddarous Marcus Bond","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4604767,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-03-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2018-00107-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":14826801,"judge":"Presiding Judge John Everett Williams","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:32:00.134422Z","date_created":"2019-03-28T21:37:30.413074Z","score":{"bm25":27.748804}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8294,"cites":[110138,1057558,1057707,1060321,1060573,1060945,1518420,1651862,1685871,1720938,1747577,2107500,2362733,2408953,2438284],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/bond_roddarous_opn.pdf","id":4382020,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/03/28/state_of_tennessee_v._roddarous_marcus_bond.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:13:32.303873Z","date_created":"2019-03-28T21:37:30.428477Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d979742208d93c1d62681d4aa11b0767b14c4923","snippet":"                                                                                            03/28/2019\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                                 January 9, 2019 Session\n\n         STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RODDAROUS MARCUS BOND\n\n                  Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County\n                           No. 14-517 Kyle Atkins, Judge\n                      ___________________________________\n\n           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4382020],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant, Roddarous Bond, was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The trial court merged the two convictions and imposed a twentythree-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the offenses (2) the trial court erred in allowing witnesses to refer to letters that had been destroyed and (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach the Defendant with a prior statement that the trial court had excluded. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9470354/glen-s-v-commissioner-of-correction/","attorney":"","caseName":"Glen S. v. Commissioner of Correction","caseNameFull":"","citation":["223 Conn. App. 152"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":9470354,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC45655","docket_id":68207387,"judge":"Suarez; Seeley; Norcott","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:26.060284Z","date_created":"2024-01-30T22:02:37.803234Z","score":{"bm25":27.204334}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4108831,4380454,4994877,7848508,7854373,7864365,8207203,9424363,9429592],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP223/223AP66.pdf","id":9928192,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/02/glen_s._v._commissioner_of_correction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:16:25.380412Z","date_created":"2024-01-30T22:02:37.805915Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b5309c46c694e45a3c2e82660c6ae90badd780a8","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court, M. Murphy, J.; judgment denying the petition; thereafter, the court, M. Murphy, J., denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed. Vishal K. Garg, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner). Melissa E. Patterson, senior assistant state's attor- ney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Donna Marie Fusco, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9928192],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The petitioner, who had been convicted, on a guilty plea entered pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford (400 U.S. 25), of sexual assault in a cohabiting relationship, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance by allowing him to enter a guilty plea while he was under the influence of prescription drugs that affected his ability to give a knowing and meaningful plea. At trial, when the petitioner's counsel attempted to call his first witness, R, to testify as to the petitioner's character for truthfulness, counsel for the respon- dent, the Commissioner of Correction, objected on the grounds of rele- vance. The court sustained the respondent's relevancy objection. The petitioner's habeas counsel never sought to recall R as a witness after the petitioner testified. The court rendered judgment denying the petition for habeas corpus and, thereafter, denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner having failed to show that there was an issue that was debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could have resolved the issue in a different manner or that the question was adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further: the habeas court properly determined that R's testimony, when R had no connection with the plea hearing, was not relevant to the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; moreover, at the time the petitioner's counsel called R to testify, the petitioner had not himself testified and, thus, his veracity had not been challenged or impeached and extrinsic evidence of his character for truthfulness was immaterial. Argued October 5, 2023—officially released January 2, 2024"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5261449/in-re-the-impeachment-of-moriarty/","attorney":"Mark A. Richardson, Jefferson City, for House Manager., Stuart K. Berkowitz, St. Louis, for Ms. Moriarty., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Don M. Downing, Deputy Atty. Gen., Erwin 0. Switzer, III, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Norman E. Siegel, Gretehen E. Rowan, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for amicus.","caseName":"In re the Impeachment of Moriarty","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the IMPEACHMENT OF Judith K. MORIARTY","citation":["902 S.W.2d 273","1994 Mo. LEXIS 86","1994 WL 696310"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":5261449,"court":"Supreme Court of Missouri","court_citation_string":"Mo.","court_id":"mo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1994-12-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 77363","docket_id":60592035,"judge":"Benton, Covington, Holstein, Limbaugh, Price, Robertson, Thomas","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:25:53.471852Z","date_created":"2021-10-01T14:43:54.084984Z","score":{"bm25":27.122461}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5088509,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:21:01.693493Z","date_created":"2021-10-01T14:43:54.097801Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nPursuant to Article VII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Missouri Constitution, the House of Representatives of the Missouri General Assembly filed Articles of Impeachment in this Court charging the Secretary of State, Judith K. Moriarty, with misconduct in office. Specifically, the Articles of Impeachment charge three acts of misconduct: First, that Judith K. Moriarty caused and directed or knowingly allowed the signatu","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5088509],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4442805/state-of-tennessee-v-richard-crawford/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Richard Crawford","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4442805,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-11-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2016-01230-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":6222701,"judge":"Judge Camille R. McMullen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:46:18.367920Z","date_created":"2017-11-14T09:20:06.957982Z","score":{"bm25":27.095097}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8286,"cites":[2349081,2413871],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/crawford_richard_opn.pdf","id":4220058,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/11/13/state_of_tennessee_v._richard_crawford.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:20:50.665487Z","date_created":"2017-11-14T09:20:06.967572Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"46866744733ec2d18b0a3ca32c6508bf9c194917","snippet":"                                                                                         11/13/2017\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                                 July 11, 2017 Session\n\n             STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD CRAWFORD\n\n                 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County\n                  No. 11-02621       James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4220058],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant, Richard Crawford, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of especially aggravated robbery, attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, and employing a firearm during the attempted commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by: (1) determining that alleged prior bad acts of the victim and another witness were inadmissible for impeachment purposes and (2) preventing the Defendant from subpoenaing the victim to testify a second time about additional prior inconsistent statements. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4761856/thomas-mitchell-v-state-of-tennessee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Thomas Mitchell v. State of Tennessee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4761856,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-06-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2019-01092-CCA-R3-PC","docket_id":17259059,"judge":"Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:17:19.143192Z","date_created":"2020-06-17T23:11:08.366537Z","score":{"bm25":26.948097}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8287,"cites":[111170,112807,1057707,1060512,1060938,1061016,1568514,1769614,2388301],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/mitchell_thomas_opn.pdf","id":4542203,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/06/17/thomas_mitchell_v._state_of_tennessee.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:04:30.093860Z","date_created":"2020-06-17T23:11:08.375006Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2197a49191e3af454382eda963341ea637726e83","snippet":"                                                                                            06/17/2020\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                            Assigned on Briefs April 8, 2020\n\n               THOMAS MITCHELL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE\n\n                  Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County\n                    No. 13-06257 Carolyn Wade Blackett, Judge\n\n\n                             No. W2019-01092-CCA-R3-PC\n\n\nTh","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4542203],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Petitioner, Thomas Mitchell, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for burglary, for which he is serving a ten-year, Range III sentence. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims that (1) counsel failed to object and to request a mistrial when a witness testified that a police officer knew the Petitioner by name, (2) counsel failed to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements, (3) counsel failed to call a police officer as a witness, (4) counsel stated in closing argument that a witness had given a statement to the police in which the witness said the Petitioner entered one of the buildings from which the Petitioner was alleged to have removed wiring, (5) counsel failed to state explicitly in closing argument that the jury should consider lesser included offenses, and (6) the cumulative effect of counsel's deficient performance in multiple instances deprived the Petitioner of the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6461134/state-of-tennessee-v-william-eugene-moon/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. William Eugene Moon","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6461134,"court":"Tennessee Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Tenn.","court_id":"tenn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2019-01865-SC-R11-CD","docket_id":63249468,"judge":"Chief Justice Roger A. Page","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:45:28.853856Z","date_created":"2022-04-20T15:13:15.715376Z","score":{"bm25":26.440615}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/moon_william_eugene-_filed_opn.pdf","id":6333245,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/20/state_of_tennessee_v._william_eugene_moon.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T19:27:04.656721Z","date_created":"2022-04-20T15:13:15.722391Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"aa7698b6a475b129d9728f8ed6c8551e2ca868be","snippet":"                                                                                                     04/20/2022\n                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE\n                              AT NASHVILLE\n                                   October 6, 2021 Session1\n\n            STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM EUGENE MOON\n\n               Appeal by Permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals\n                           Circuit Court for Coffee County\n                         No. 44,905F L. Craig ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6333245],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"William Eugene Moon (\"Defendant\") was convicted of attempted second degree murder and unlawful employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony. Defendant appealed his conviction and asserted, among other things, that he had been denied the right to a speedy trial and that the trial court erred by allowing improper impeachment of a defense witness. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments of the trial court, holding that Defendant was not denied a speedy trial and, although the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to improperly impeach a defense witness, the error was harmless. This Court granted Defendant's application for permission to appeal to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals applied the proper standard of review to Defendant's claim that he was denied a speedy trial, to address the merits of Defendant's speedy trial claim, and to determine whether the trial court committed reversible error in allowing improper impeachment of a defense witness. We hold that the standard of review for an alleged speedy trial violation is de novo with deference to the trial court's findings of fact unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. When reviewed under this standard, we determine that the Court of Criminal Appeals properly held that the Defendant was not denied a speedy trial. Further, we agree with the intermediate court that the trial court erred in allowing improper impeachment of a defense witness. However, we hold that this error was not harmless and is reversible error. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and vacate the judgments of the trial court. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."}]}