Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

Criminal trials are often long and complicated and present many confusing issues for defendant, lawyer, and judge alike. It is unavoidable, then, that mistakes will be made at some point along the way with regard to how the trial is conducted, which evidence is admitted and how it is used, or at various other stages of the trial. It is no surprise, then, that a defendant who is found guilty of a crime will often seek to be granted a new trial on the basis that such error prejudiced the defendant at trial and skewed the outcome of the case. Many states, Tennessee included, will only grant a new trial under these circumstances if the error was “harmful” to the defendant. Harmless error, which is basically error that does not negatively impact the defendant in a substantial way, is not a sufficient basis for a new trial in Tennessee. Error that is sufficiently harmful to the defendant as to warrant a new trial is known as “reversible” error.

Reviewing courts in Tennessee basically look at five factors to see whether or not an error is reversible: (1) The error complained of viewed in context and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case; (2) the curative measures undertaken by the court and the prosecution; (3) the intent of the prosecution in undertaking the improper conduct; (4) the total effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record of the trial; and (5) the relative strength or weakness of the defendant's case. These five factors essentially work together to measure how severe an error occurred at the trial level and how harmful that error was to the defendant. When an error has occurred at the trial stage, it is imperative that a defendant be represented on appeal by a competent criminal defense attorney who can argue these five factors in the defendant’s favor and then expertly represent the defendant should a new trial be granted. This may enable the defendant to avoid the sentence that was handed down at the first trial or possibly conviction altogether.

Source: State v. Francis, 669 S.W.2d 85 (Tenn. 1984)