finding that these rights derive from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Tennessee Constitution
How later courts described this case
- finding that these rights derive from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Tennessee Constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BEN H. CANTRELL, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s order. In my view, it is simply a case of statutory application. In the “Open Parole Hearing Act” of 1993 the legislature provided that the Parole Board shall receive and consider victim impact statements, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-504 (a); that notice be given to the victim or the victim’s representative and to the trial judge and district attorney involved in the original criminal prosecution. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-505(b)(l), (2) and (4); and that on a failure to provide the required notices, the Board may schedule a new hearing if the Board receives a written victim impact statement within fifteen days of the time the parole decision is finalized, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-505(d)(2).
The facts of this case fit the statute almost perfectly. I believe the Board was justified in scheduling the second hearing and in considering the feelings of the victim’s family. I believe that is what the legislature intended for the Board to do.