# State v. West

> Tennessee Supreme Court · February 6, 1989 · 767 S.W.2d 387

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863214

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Stephen Michael WEST, Appellant
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 6, 1989
- **Citations:** 767 S.W.2d 387; 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 28
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Pones, Harbison, Cooper, Drowota, O'Brien
- **Cited by:** 85 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/9863214

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that “the State is entitled to prove all of the relevant circumstances in such manner as it sees fit, within the .rules of evidence” and upholding a trial court’s refusal, to accept a defendant’s stipulation to certain. facts which the defendant offered in an effor…
- holding that the trial judge did not err by refusing to accept defendant’s offer to stipulate the identity of all property when the defendant made the offer in an effort to eliminate highly emotional and prejudicial testimony
- stating that it was improper for prosecutor to tell jury that defense counsel was “trying to throw sand in the eyes of the jury” and “b lowing smo ke in the face of the jury”
- holding that Eighth Amendment error in minimizing role of the jury in a capital case is subject to harmless error analysis

## Opinion text

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
Defendant’s petition to rehear presents three issues that were fully argued, considered by the Court and dealt with in the opinion. The fourth issue lists seven items that defendant classifies as errors recognized by the Court in the released opinion, and asserts that “the combination of errors ... deprived defendant of a fair trial.” Some of the items were merely violations of the “better practice” rules. We have given careful consideration to defendant’s contention and are of the opinion that the total errors in this record are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The petition to rehear is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863214. Public record. Not legal advice.