State of Tennessee v. Michael Taylor
Syllabus
A Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Michael Taylor, for first degree premeditated murder, unlawful possession of a weapon, and violation of an order of protection. The Defendant, at his jury trial, was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder as well as the charged offenses of unlawful possession of a weapon and violation of an order of protection. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective twenty-five year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court provided an incomplete and misleading jury instruction on self-defense that prevented him from receiving a fair trial. Because the self-defense instruction was error and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the particular facts of this case, we reverse the Defendant's convictions and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial on all counts.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that there is an identity of claims when two suits arise from “the same transactional nucleus of facts”
- finding privity “when a party is so identified in interest with a party to former litigation that he represents precisely the same right in respect to the subject matter involved”
- finding privity between parties exists when a party is “so identified in interest with a party to former litigation that he represents precisely the same right in respect to the subject matter involved”
- confirmed chapter 11 6 plan released third party from funding obligation arguably owed 7 to debtor
- privity between parties exists 12 when a party is “so identified in interest with a party to former litigation that he represents 13 precisely the same right in respect to the subject matter involved”
- “Privity between parties 22 exists when a party is ‘so identified in interest with a party to former litigation that he 23 represents precisely the same right in respect to the subject matter involved.’” (quoting In 24 re Schimmels, 127 F.3d 875, 881 (9th Cir. 1997))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced 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.