stating that information in NCIC reports is pure hearsay of a dubious degree of accuracy, prepared for purposes other than court use, contains information that is likely to be prejudicial under all circumstances, and is not the best evidence of matters that can be proven by reliable, documentary evidence
How later courts described this case
- stating that information in NCIC reports is pure hearsay of a dubious degree of accuracy, prepared for purposes other than court use, contains information that is likely to be prejudicial under all circumstances, and is not the best evidence of matters that can be proven by reliable, documentary evidence
- adopting the five-factor analysis enunciated in Judge v. State, 539 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1976)
- holding that the jury charge for the (i)(7) aggravating circumstance should have been limited to rape, robbery, and kidnapping
- considering the felony murder aggravating circumstance as a single aggravating circumstance when the murder occurred while the defendant was committing rape, *205 robbery, and kidnapping
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROCK, Justice,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I concur in the opinion of the Court in all respects except the constitutionality of the death penalty. With respect to the constitutionality of the death penalty, I adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in State v. Dicks, Tenn., 615 S.W.2d 126 (1981).