stating that the court need not determine which of two competing standards should apply where the “result reached would be the same” under either
How later courts described this case
- stating that the court need not determine which of two competing standards should apply where the “result reached would be the same” under either
- explaining that the State has an affirmative duty to prevent or correct false testimony
- holding that Bagley “discarded” the Agurs tests and created a single standard
- holding that the district attorney has a duty to correct false testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION TO REHEAR
The State of Tennessee has filed a petition to rehear in this case pursuant to Rule 39, Tenn.R.App.P. The state subsequently filed a supplemental petition.
The State contends that:
[T]his Court’s opinion relies upon matters of fact or law upon which the parties have not been heard and that are open to reasonable dispute. T.R.A.P. (a)(4). The opinion also overlooks material facts regarding whether Henry Apple had been offered a “deal” by the State. T.R.A.P. (a)(3). In addition, this Court’s opinion incorrectly states the material facts established by the evidence and set forth in the record with regard to the information possessed by the State at the time of trial about Robert Coats. T.R.A.P. (a)(1).
The supplemental petition simply adds additional factual allegations.
This Court thoroughly read the record on more than one occasion. The salient portions of the record were reread numerous times. In addition, this Court listened to and laboriously reconstructed the Coarsey tape by playing and replaying each portion of the tape until the colloquy was complete. Consequently, this Court did not overlook any material fact as the State contends. Nor has it overlooked any portion of the law which was thoroughly investigated prior to writing the opinion.
The opinion of this Court was predicated upon the record presented to this Court. The conduct of the prosecution is clearly set forth on the face of the record. The parties were afforded an ample opportunity by the trial court to create a record. Consequently, the parties have been heard; and the facts as well as the law is not open to dispute.
All of the issues addressed fall under the same law umbrella. Also, this Court may recognize plain error on the face of the record especially an error of constitutional dimension. See Tenn.RApp.P. 13(b); Tenn. R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Goins, 705 S.W.2d 648 (Tenn.1986); State v. Ogle, 666 S.W.2d 58 (Tenn.1984); State v. Seagraves, 837 S.W.2d 615, 617-618 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992); State v. Maynard, 629 S.W.2d 911 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981); State v. Harless, 607 S.W.2d 492 (Tenn.Crim.App.1980).
Accordingly, the petition to rehear is denied.
ENTER this 5th day of August, 1993.
/s/ Joe B. Jones JOE B. JONES JUDGE
/s/ Adolpho A. Birch, Jr. ADOLPHO B. BIRCH, Jr. JUDGE