# State v. Hall

> Tennessee Supreme Court · September 21, 1998 · 976 S.W.2d 121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524367

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. William E. HALL and Derrick D. Quintero, Appellants
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 21, 1998
- **Citations:** 976 S.W.2d 121; 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 514; 1998 WL 658594
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Birch
- **Judges:** Anderson, Holder, Birch, Reid, Drowota
- **Cited by:** 711 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524367

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that aggravating circumstance that murder was committed during escape from lawful custody was not “ ‘unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case’ ” because “ ‘it was intended to protect law enforcement officers’ ” where victims were killed while defendants were at…
- holding that improper testimony about defendant’s prior crime did not create a manifest neces sity for a mistrial because trial court gave an immediate curative instruction
- finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s overruling the defendant’s objections to the State’s closing comments such as “‘that’s not a reasonable alternative,’” and “‘such a ridiculous position’”
- finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court overruling the defendant’s objections to the State’s closing comments such as “’that’s not a reasonable alternative,’” and “’such a ridiculous position’”
- concluding that the defendants waived the claim that the State failed to reveal that a witness was untruthful because the defendants “had an opportunity to correct any error” and failed to do so

## Opinion text

BIRCH, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority in this case except with respect to the issue of proportionality. On that issue, the majority holds that the punishment of death is not disproportionate under the record in this ease. I respectfully dissent, and I do so for the same reasons outlined in State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269 (Tenn. 1998) (Birch, J., dissenting).
In Blanton , no direct evidence was adduced that Blanton shot either victim or stabbed Mrs. Vester. The same analysis applies here — there is no direct evidence that Hall or Quintero shot either victim or stabbed Mrs. Vester. 1 Thus, considering the factor of “the defendant[s’] involvement or role in the murder[s],” the absence of direct evidence that either defendant was the actual killer compels my conclusion that the punishment of death is, in this case, disproportionate. See Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987) (discussing how a defendant’s role in a murder affects the sentencing decision); State v. Branam, 855 S.W.2d 563, 570-71 (Tenn.1993). I would, accordingly, remand the cause for a new sentencing hearing.
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
A petition for rehearing has been filed on behalf of the appellants. After consideration of the same, a majority of the Court is of the opinion that the petition should be and the same is hereby denied at the cost of appellant.
Justice Birch adheres to the views expressed in his original concurringZcHssenting opinion in this case.
Frank F. Drowota, III, Justice
. The charges against Blanton, Quintero, and Hall all arose from the same incident.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524367. Public record. Not legal advice.