You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State of Tennessee v. Ronald Frank Webb

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2006-01793-CCA-MR3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 12, 2008; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a defendant convicted of a third DUI offense, classified as a Class A misdemeanor, in the Criminal Court for Cumberland County, resulting in a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with 120 days to be served in jail. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court provided lengthy and confusing jury instructions and improperly commented during the trial. However, the defendant did not have a court reporter at trial, limiting the appellate review to the evidence statement and jury instructions. No objections regarding the jury instructions were raised in the motion for a new trial, leading the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee to review the matter under plain error doctrine. The appellate court found no plain error in the jury instructions or the trial court's comments and confirmed that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the verdict. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, maintaining the defendant's conviction and sentence.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeal on Grounds of Jury Instructions

Application: The appellant argued that the trial court's lengthy and confusing jury instructions warranted a reversal, yet failed to raise these issues in the motion for a new trial.

Reasoning: On appeal, Webb contended that the trial court erred by providing lengthy and confusing jury instructions and acknowledged the confusion in his comments.

Plain Error Review

Application: The court applied a plain error review due to the absence of issues raised in the motion for a new trial regarding jury instructions.

Reasoning: The appeal was based on claims of plain error regarding the instructions and the trial court's comments.

Sufficiency of Evidence

Application: The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction of the defendant for DUI, third offense.

Reasoning: The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the verdict, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.