State of Tennessee v. Tony Thomas and LaRonda Turner (Concur in Part and Dissent in Part)

Syllabus

I join in full the majority opinion's analysis of the Brady issue and its judgment affirming Tony Thomas's conviction. I also agree with much of the majority's analysis regarding the accomplice-corroboration rule, including its decision to abrogate that rule. I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that our holding abrogating the accomplice-corroboration rule should apply only in future cases and pending cases that have not yet gone to trial. I would instead apply that holding here—and to other cases pending in trial courts or in appellate courts on direct review—and affirm Laronda Turner's conviction on that basis. I write separately to offer an additional reason why the accomplice-corroboration rule should be abrogated and to explain why our decision should apply retroactively.1