State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Scott Long
Syllabus
Defendant, Jeffrey Scott Long, was indicted by the Blount County Grand Jury for first degree murder, felony murder during the perpetration of a burglary, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged, and the trial court merged the two murder convictions. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the murder conviction and concurrent six-year sentences for the remaining two convictions. In this appeal as of right, Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) Defendant's statement to police should have been suppressed because he made an unequivocal request for counsel, and he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights 2) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence an order of protection granted to the victim against Defendant 3) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence autopsy photos 4) the trial court should have suppressed evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of Defendant's apartment 5) the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony outside the scope of the forensic pathologist's expertise 6) the trial court erred by denying Defendant's request for a special jury instruction 7) the trial court erred by allowing evidence that was not properly authenticated 8) Defendant was denied a fair trial because a portion of trial testimony was not transcribed 9) the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant's convictions 10) the State exceeded the scope of its closing argument on rebuttal and 11) the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal of Defendant's convictions. Having carefully reviewed the entire record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that there is no error. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant's convictions.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that because the child was over age 14 when making the interview and the statute had not been changed at that point, the statement was inadmissible hearsay because former OCGA § 24-3-16 applied
- “any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or to disprove a material fact which is at issue in the case, and every act or circumstance serving to elucidate or to throw light upon a material issue or issues is relevant”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.