State v. Burns
- Decided
- November 8, 1999
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Tennessee
Cited 3,074 timesAbrogated on other grounds (verified)Abrogated on other grounds (verified) · Eddie Medlock v. State of Tennessee
What later courts said
- holding that there must be a factual basis before an instruction on a lesser-included offense is submitted to the jury — State of Tennessee v. Clarence L. Currie (2000)
- holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct on facilitation because no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant had the knowledge required for facilitation but lacked the intent required for criminal responsibility — State v. Robinson (2004)
- holding that appellate review of the trial court’s conclusion regarding the effectiveness of counsel is de novo because it involves a mixed question of law and fact — State of Tennessee v. William Makransky (2001)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION BARKER, Justice.
Defendant/appellee Brenda Burns was tried and convicted of criminal responsibility for the commission of first-degree murder in the death of her ex-husband, Paul Burns. [1]
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction on the basis that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to interview two potential defense witnesses and present the testimony of those witnesses before the jury. The State filed an Application for Permission to Appeal contesting the intermediate court’s reversal of the defendant’s conviction on that basis. The defendant filed a Cross-Application for Permission to Appeal raising, among other issues, whether the trial court had committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (ie., first-degree murder), Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-403 (1991), and solicitation to commit a criminal offense (ie., first-degree murder), Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-12-102 (1991). We granted both Applications in order to address these important issues.
Cite this
State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (1999)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.