State v. Sams

statutory duty apply payments to those properly and not to divert them so as to Tennessee, Appellee, STATE exposed leave the possi- landowner to the

bility of Pipe, a lien. Hayes 695 S.W.2d at 179. The explains: Restatement further SAMS, Ricky Appellant. (1) If neither the debtor nor the creditor Tennessee, Appeals Court of Criminal power

has respect exercised his to at Knoxville. application payment aof as between debts, two or more matured payment Oct. applied is to to which debts the creditor could applied just regard it with Appeal Permission to Denied persons, the interests of third the debtor Supreme Court Jan. and the creditor.

(2) In applying payments under the rule (1),

stated in is payment Subsection

applied to the earliest matured debt

notably among debts of the same maturi-

ty, except preference given that is

(a) to a debt that the debtor is under

duty person pay to a third immedi-

ately. ... (Second)

Restatement Contracts §

(1981). explains

Comment b that when § progress payments

a contractor uses

pay supplier, whom he owes for other

materials as well as for on materials used job those generating payments, then payments

those be applied must to the

debts for materials used on be- job that duty

cause contractor owes a pay debt. The

owner result does depend on supplier whether the knew had reason to know the source of the

money payment. used as Restatement

(Second) of Contracts b Comment § judgment is re- below plaintiff’s

versed and the claim for a on lien property

the defendant’s is dismissed. The County to the

cause remanded Sumner

Chancery proceed- Court for further

ings necessary. become Costs appellees. taxed to the

are

TODD, KOCH, J., P.J., and concur. used the

assistant district power as a subpoena of the trial court removing his for relatives the courtroom. impression. first Our

This is case of involving research has not revealed case precise by appellant.1 the issue raised the the son appellant’s The state called Before the witness as its second witness. testimony, completed the trial his for lunch. Dur recessed the recess, attor ing the the subpoenas appel ney general issued grandmother, aunt and brother. lant’s morning had attended the These relatives When the of the trial. session for stepmother and a second aunt arrived trial, as the afternoon session attorney general issued sub sistant district for them. poenas pro- reconvened the After following colloquy occurred ceedings, the judge: counsel and between the audi- From GENERAL WILSON: ence, every ... answered time [R.E.S.] between, talking question there was loud among thing, grandmother one —for Burson, Report- Atty. & Charles W. Gen. him. seated behind and those that were Gen., er, Atty. Tarkington, Asst. Amy attention, brought my not That was Nashville, Kirkpatrick, Atty. Dist. K. Carl So, officer, spectator. I but another Wilson, Gen., Davenport, Rebecca Edward five on of the State served behalf Blountville, Gen., ap- for Attys. Asst. Dist. five (5) subpoenas, had the officers serve pellee. (5) since people, on those Roach, City (appeal rule, Johnson James S. I has asked for the Defendant (trial Musick, only), Kerry A. Blountville would they step out. We ask that would only), appellant. stay to instruct those who ask Court they not to this are

in any wit- upon testimony comment OPINION the Defen- ness whether for the State or JONES, Judge. case, com- in or make side bar dant this Sams, appealed Ricky The appellant, ments. following his convic- right to this Court Well, any if are THE COURT: rape, aggravated for two counts tions courtroom, during the spectators in this of sexual counts rape, and two one count of witnesses, testimony you if demon- offenses of these battery. The victims manner, through ac- either strate minor children. two otherwise, remove the Court will tions courtroom, need to you you from the so he was de- contends that keep that in mind. argues that trial. He nied a nied, Burton, 62 L.Ed.2d 459 Pa. 444 U.S. Commonwealth The cases of similar, (1979) not (1974) these do are but decisions A.2d Weatherford precise case. (Ala.Crim.App.), issue State, cert. de address So.2d Honor, your please, alleged supposedly MR. If MUSICK: disturbance created respond. I like to Ironically, would I here relatives. two of testimony, and I hear didn’t attend morn- excluded anything distracting the Court. Your ing session of any Honor was If there. there was dis- attorney general’s The district assistant traction, your Honor would have heard it. subpoena of court’s blatant abuse the trial quite object And I frankly to the State power purpose for the exclusive of remov- issuing subpoenas for purpose the mere ing the from the courtroom consti- relatives excluding people of from the courtroom. prosecutorial egregious tuted misconduct. Well, THE I COURT: don’t know that This state violated the action they did that. public right trial2 as constitutional Wilson, you MR. do MUSICK: General right as the of rela- well constitutional the people intend to call these as witnesses? tives to the trial.3 attend very GENERAL WILSON: I well I, Article 9 of the Tennessee Con- Section may, very may, I well Mr. Musick. to a right stitution affords the accused the All subsequently five relatives were re- “speedy public origin pur- trial.” The and moved from the courtroom for the balance right ably the pose of this was stated in of the trial. case of In Oliver:4 re by The statements made the assistant accepted practice guar- This of nation’s attorney general district crystal make it anteeing public an has trial to accused he subpoena clear that used the power of English its our heri- roots in commonlaw the trial court as a exclud- tage. origin exact of its date ing the appellant’s relatives from court- the obscure, likely long but evolved before calling room. hadHe no intention of these the settlement of our land as an accom- They individuals as witnesses. never were paniment the of ancient institution by the interviewed assistant district attor- jury country guarantee In this the ney general or a member of the district right public an accused of the to a Moreover, attorney general’s staff. it is in state appeared first constitution highly doubtful that these individuals had in the [Pennsylvania] Following knowledge of facts that would have been ratification in 1791 of the Federal Consti- course, admissible evidence. Of the as- Amendment, tution’s which com- Sixth general attorney sistant district did not call “In prosecutions, mands all criminal any of these individuals as witnesses. enjoy right the shall the to a accused speedy the trial ...” most of knew, The trial or should original subsequently states and those known, from the statement of the assistant adopted the admitted to Union similar attorney general, district the absence provisions. Today constitutional almost in noticeable the court- disturbance exception every without state consti- morning session, room the and the tution, statute, decision, judicial re- individuals for whom the were quires open all trials criminal attorney issued that the assistant district public. the general using subpoena power of indirectly Anglo-American to do what The traditional distrust he could as- directly, namely, variously do exclude the for secret trials has been prac- the trial cribed to the notorious use of this relatives from courtroom. Yet Spanish Inquisition, inquire no tice made effort into English excesses of Court of Star motives of Chamber, monarchy’s taking unusual action nor to the French Const., I, ings. Only seek Art. entitled to Tenn. Sec. respective redress violation their for the Drake, (Tenn. 3. See State 701 S.W.2d 604 right. 1985). standing not have does deprivation for the relative's seek redress of his 4.333 .U.S. 92 L.Ed. 682 proceed- constitutional to attend the trial de the lettre cachet. discretion,8 (c) abuse of All potentially perjurious these obviously symbolized institutions addition, testimony.9 and abusive In liberty. menace to of des- the hands public’s presence may induce unknown wit- potic groups each of them had become an nesses to come rele- forward evidence suppression politi- instrument controversy vant to the issues in or facts cal and religious in ruthless dis- heresies witness,10 impeach which can be used to regard of an accused to a encourage participants perform fair trial. Whatever other benefits respective conscientiously,11 their duties guarantee to an accused that his trial be community and afford the citizens upon conducted in confer our opportunity justice to observe criminal society, guarantee always has been system progress, determine whether recognized safeguard against as a system functioning adequately, and ex- attempt employ to our courts as instru- public press findings these the form of persecution.5 ments of opinion.12 right guaran- In summary, serves as a appellate “fairly tee that courts of have the accused will be dealt this State 6 and unjustly citizens, with condemned.” specified never which exclusive media,13 permitted attend must be presence of citizens in satisfy in order court (a) safeguards against the accused requirements right minimum perse- being used as an instrument of cution,7 (b) However, uni- judicial power public trial.14 abuse and courts 62-63, 266-270, 504-506, Jelke, People supra, 5. 333 68 v. 308 123 U.S. at S.Ct. at 92 N.Y. at Lane, 772; supra, L.Ed. at 690-692. N.E.2d at State v. 397 N.Ed.2d 1343; Harding, supra, at at v. P.2d 35. State 635 Texas, 532, 538-539, 6. Estes v. U.S. 85 381 S.Ct. Court, Newspaper Superior Co. v. su- See Globe 1628, 1631, 543, (1965). 14 L.Ed.2d 548 See 2619-2620, 605-606, pra, 457 U.S. at 102 S.Ct. at 39, 46, Georgia, Walter v. 467 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d at 256-257. 2210, 31, 2215, (1984); L.Ed.2d Gannett 81 38 368, 381, Co., DePasquale, Inc. v. 443 U.S. 99 Texas, 583, supra, v. 381 at 85 S.Ct. 11. Estes U.S. 2906, 608, 2898, (1979). S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d 622 1653, C.J., (Warren, concur- at 14 L.Ed.2d at 573 46, ring); Georgia, supra, 467 U.S. at Waller v. 270, Oliver, supra, In re 333 U.S. at 68 S.Ct. at 7. 38; 2215, v. S.Ct. at L.Ed.2d at Nieto 104 81 506, 92 at L.Ed. 692. Sullivan, 753; supra, at United States v. 879 F.2d Sherlock, 1076; People supra, F.2d at v. States, 878, 865 A.2d 881 8. Kleinbart v. United 388 674, 999, Jones, 1001 82 442 N.Y.S.2d A.D.2d (D.C.1978). Lane, (1981); supra, at 1343. State v. 583, Texas, supra, Court, v. 381 85 9. Estes U.S. at S.Ct. Newspaper Superior Co. v. su- See Globe C.J., 1653, (Warren, 2619-2620, 605-606, at concur- at 14 L.Ed.2d 573 pra, 457 102 S.Ct. at U.S. at 46, ring); Georgia, supra, 467 U.S. at Waller v. L.Ed.2d 73 at 256-257. 2215, 38; Davis 104 S.Ct. at 81 L.Ed.2d at v. 1105, Cir.1989); (10th Reynolds, F.2d 1109 890 583, Texas, supra, 85 S.Ct. Estes v. 381 U.S. at 12. 743, (10th Sullivan, F.2d Nieto v. 879 753 Cir. 1653, C.J., (Warren, concur- 14 at 573 at L.Ed.2d Sherlock, 1069, 1989); v. F.2d 865 753; Sullivan, supra, ring); Nieto v. 879 Cir.1989); (9th Sheppard, 182 1075-1076 Sherlock, supra, at 865 F.2d United States v. 125, 412, (1980); People v. Conn. 438 A.2d 127 1076; Jones, supra, People at 442 N.Y.S.2d v. 62-63, 769, Jelke, 56, N.E.2d 772 308 N.Y. 123 112, Lane, (1954); St.2d 397 Ohio 1338, (1979); Harding, N.E.2d Drake, supra. See State 33, (Utah 1981). Newspaper P.2d See Globe 605-606, Court, 596, Superior Co. v. 457 U.S. See, Wainwright, e.g., Douglas 714 F.2d 2619-2620, 248, 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 256-257. S.Ct. 1532, Cir.1983), judgment vacated 1206, 3575, remanded, 104 S.Ct. 583, and 468 U.S. Texas, supra, 381 U.S. at 85 S.Ct. 10. Estes v. remand, (1984), appeal C.J., (Warren, L.Ed.2d 874 1653, concur- at 573 at 14 L.Ed.2d after denied, (11th Cir.1984), 469 U.S. cert. F.2d 531 ring); Georgia, supra, at 467 U.S. Waller v. It 38; Co., 105 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d 321 L.Ed.2d at Gannett 104 S.Ct. at only implies public been trial "[a] has said that DePasquale, 443 U.S. Inc. 2898, 2907, open wish who (1979); the court must be those that Nieto v. L.Ed.2d come, seats, Sullivan, 753; them sit available conduct in the supra, United States v. 879 F.2d decorum, pro Sherlock, 1076; Tanksley and observe the selves with supra, F.2d Texas, Cir.1944); States, U.S. at Estes cess.” United versally recognized right that general agreement of an There is the ac- accused to have his and family friends family given cused’s friends are to present integral is an element of to a priority over when Oliver, the case of In re trial.15 Also, courtroom is overcrowded.19 closure the United States Supreme Court exempt orders frequently an accused’s exception said that “without all courts have family and so they friends can remain held very that an accused is at the least appellate in the courtroom.20 On occasion friends, entitled to have relatives and courts note that closure order made no present, counsel no matter with what of- exception family the accused’s charged.”16 fense he Other courts friends.21 just emphatic have been regarding the accused’s family have his There are two of clo classifications In State Harding, present. friends su- complete partial sures: closures and clo pra, Supreme the Utah Court stated that sures. A complete closure has the effect “an presence accused is entitled to the excluding everyone from the courtroom family facing and friends when serious exception parties, attor 17 Later, charges.” criminal the Utah Su- neys, personnel, court and the witnesses. Crowley, State v. preme Court stated in complete A closure be for the entire supra, it could not conceive of a case proceeding,22 portion trial or or a of the “in which the near relatives and friends of testimony such as the of a the accused permitted should not be to be particular partial A witness.23 re closure upon in attendance the the purpose trial for sults the exclusion of certain members seeing the fairly accused is justly of the other dealt with the officers of while members the the 18 improperly and not permitted condemned.” are to remain in court- the 1663, (Harlan, J., 202, 491, S.Ct. 14 (1897) ["any L.Ed.2d at 584 Mich. 71 N.W. 492 friend concurring). person that was connected or related to or interested in the defendant not be himself was Oliver, supra; 15. In re v. Commonwealth Mar- excluded"]; Holm, supra [prosecutrix’s State v. shall, 432, (1969); 356 Mass. 253 N.E.2d 333 family and friends as well as the fami accused’s Harding, supra; Crowley, 766 ly permitted friends remain in the court (Utah 1988). P.2d 1069 See United States v. room]. Kobli, (3d Cir.1949). 172 F.2d 919 See, 271-272, 507, e.g., Reynolds, supra, 16. 333 U.S. at 21. Davis v. F.2d at 68 S.Ct. at 92 890 L.Ed. exceptions at 693. 1110 order ["The trial court made no press for members of the defendant”]; or for of the 17. 635 P.2d at 35. 412, Sheppard, v. State 182 Conn. 125, (1980) 438 A.2d 1128 court should ["the (quoting 18. 766 1071 P.2d at from State v. Jor- inquired necessary have whether was to ex- dan, 612, 565, (1921)). 57 Utah 196 P. 567 family, clude members when of the defendant’s Kobli, supra, 19. v. F.2d at complainant’s per- 172 922. family members of the States, See Davis v. United 394 Cir. 247 F. the mitted remain in courtroom’’]. 1917); Jones, People N.Y.S.2d family 1003 [“a defendant’s and friends should See, e.g., Georgia, [everyone supra Waller Holm, attendance."]; priority sup- excluded from the courtroom for the entire 500, Wyo. P.2d Marshall, hearing]; pression Commonwealth v. supra [everyone excluded from the courtroom See, e.g., Capps, Aaron 687- during a the trial of sexual offense committed Cir.1975) relatives, [prosecutrix's defen against a victim]. minor relatives, clergyman, dant's defendant’s and the courtroom]; press allowed to remain in the See, e.g., Reynolds, supra, Davis v. [exclusion States, Tanksley United press general public during the testimo counsel, exempted parties "the [court and their ny three law, of one of the minor victims sex representatives the the officers of State, offense]; Ala.App. Weaver v. press, and the brother and father of the defen denied, dant”]; Morgan, So.2d cert. 249 Ala. So.2d People Ill.App.3d (1947) (1987) spectators the removed from [all Ill.Dec. family testimony exempted victim in from the [defendant's members order]; Yeager, prosecution People sexual limited closure a for a offense]. judice specified present, room.24 In the case the assist- to have the citizens sub attorney general’s narrowly ant use of sub- the order tai district closure should poenas appellant’s family protect precise pur to remove the lored to interest or partial pose being from the courtroom clo- which closure is ord created sure. ered.32 requests partial Although party judge

When a clo trial not conduct sure, case, judge apply jury-out hearing trial must the “sub in this a close reading transcript does stantial reason” test to determine if not reveal partial This less clo- closure is warranted.25 test “substantial reason” stringent than the which must be sure—the removal of the rela- standard applied request Consequently, partial closure when is a for a com tives. plete attorney closure.26 created general’s use of was not war- judge partial Before a orders a trial result would reached ranted. same closure, jury-out he should conduct a heari judge had the trial ordered the closure. ng.27 provide parties op This will an parenthetically We note that the method portunity to discuss the circumstances attorney by the district employed assistant request,28 prompting the and introduce evi effectively denied the relatives their appropriate.29 dence on the issue if Such object to closure.33 hearing opportu affords trial nity general’s if determine a “substantial reason” The assistant district requested wanting appellant’s relatives closure.30 If the motive for exists for courtroom, rea is obvious. finds that a removed “substantial victims, exists, the appellant’s He not want the compare son” he must the accused’s children, during right sought to face their relatives their to have the citizens to be result, a testimony. safeguard need clos As present excluded with the for a improve quality to testimo- attempts ure.31 finds that the When ny perjury partial outweighs by discouraging and abusive- need for a closure 2814, Sherlock, (1980); Reynolds, e.g., Davis 24. v. F.2d 65 L.Ed.2d 973 v. See United States 865 Henderson, 1069, (10th Cir.1989); (9th Cir.1989) the ac- 1105 IP v. [members 1073 890 F.2d disruptive (S.D.N.Y.1989). family F.Supp. due to behav- cused’s excluded 915 710 State, testimony]; during ior victim’s Hackett v. 1000, 103, (1977) 266 1004 [rela- Ind. (Iowa Hightower, N.W.2d 648 27. State v. 376 single a rebut- tives and friends excluded 1985)[jury before excluded from courtroom testify was to due to a tal who hesitant witness request was made]. friends]; few of accused's relatives 403, (Vt.1989) Rusin, 568 A.2d 405 [accused’s supra; Sheppard, v. Crow- 28. v. State See State neighbor properly excluded because wife and supra. ley, (minor) vic- presence would distract "their ability testify”]. adversely her tim affect to Crowley, Sheppard, supra; v. 29. State 743, Sullivan, supra. v. 879 F.2d 753 25. See Nieto Sherlock, Cir.1989); United States v. 865 F.2d (9th Cir.1989); 1069, Douglas 753-754; v. Wain Sullivan, 1077 supra, v. 879 F.2d at Nieto 1532, (11th Cir. wright, F.2d 1540-1541 Sherlock, 714 v. 865 United States remanded, 1983), judgment 468 U.S. vacated and Wainwright, supra; Douglas See v. 1076-1078. 3575, (1984), 1206, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 82 874 104 Hightower, Sheppard, supra; State v. v. State remand, (11th Cir. appeal F.2d 531 Crowley, supra. supra; State v. after 1170, denied, 1984), U.S. S.Ct. cert. L.Ed.2d Sherlock, supra, at F.2d 31. United States Sullivan, supra. to For standard Nieto request a for a com- applied when there is Sullivan, supra; 32. Nieto v. Georgia, U.S. plete see closure Waller Sherlock, supra. (1984); Press-En- L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Court, Superior terprise U.S. Co. Brooklier, (1984); Newspa- 33. United States v. Globe 78 L.Ed.2d 629 S.Ct. 1982). Court, States Cir. See United S.Ct. 1167-1168 per Superior 457 U.S. v.Co. 1078; Sherlock, (1982); F.2d Richmond News- L.Ed.2d 248 Drake, supra. Virginia, papers, 448 U.S. Inc. v. seriously impaired.34 DWYER, ness Judge, dissenting. was cases nature, knowledge this a victim’s that fami- respectful disagreement I am ly members are in the courtroom consti- majority’s subpoenaing conclusion that the strongest tutes the safeguard an accused appellant denied his can against perjured or abusive testi- public constitutional trial. Even mony. argument taking appellant’s best The attorney general him, light simply was no denial of did not to trample hesitate the constitution- public trial. rights al appellant gain of the a tactical advantage. Moreover, willing was he majority gives an excellent recital of acquire cost, advantage includ- throughout the state of the law various ing subpoena the use trial court’s jurisdictions sundry concerning full and powers as a to obtain the rela- partial Unfortunately closure. the ma- Therefore, tives removal. we conclude that jority’s reasoning, this case involves the state action the assistant district witnesses, subpoenaing of not the closure attorney general appellant denied the of a trial. The trial in no wise or- I, trial in violation of Article Section closure, partial. dered a full What did constitution; and, 9 of the Tennessee as subpoenaed occur the State five result, appellant is entitled to newa relatives: several of and, present in the whom were appellant required is es not notes, majority as the several whom prejudice prerequisite tablish actual aas Moreover, it was not. Prejudice implied for relief.35 once subpoe- excluding who asked for the rule violation of the to a trial has naed witnesses. been If rule established.36 was other wise, Although appellant claims that he was difficult, impossible, would if not for the accused to greatly prejudiced by establish that he was exclusion of five prejudiced aas result of the relatives, violation.37 of motion he did make a Moreover, requirement such would seri quash subpoenas. motion Unless a ously impair, actually if not destroy, the filed, quash normally is witnesses will be req safeguards provided trial placed under the rule. The trial not- court uirement.38 appellant ed had filed that a motion to quash subpoenas, might

The he held a judgment of the trial court re- have is versed, cause a hearing and this is remanded for on the issue. In the absence new trial. motion, such placed a he the witnesses 36(a), under the rule. Under Rule Tenn.R.

REID, J., concurs. granted App.P., appellant not should DWYER, J., dissents. relief when he failed to take the action now 1111; Texas, Reynolds, supra, 34. See Estes v. U.S. at F.2d Nie- Davis v. at C.J., 15; (Warren, Sullivan, supra, S.Ct. at 14 L.Ed.2d 879 F.2d at n. at Eisner, concurring); Reynolds, Davis at United States v. 533 F.2d 890 F.2d 127; Cir.1976) 1109; Sheppard, supra, State v. 438 A.2d at Lane, supra, at Rundle, supra; States ex rel. Bennett v. United Kobli, supra; Tanksley v. United 49-50, Georgia, supra, 35. Waller v. 467 U.S. at States, States, supra; supra. Davis See v. United 40; at 104 S.Ct. at 81 L.Ed.2d United Eisner, supra. States v. United Rundle, States Bennett v. 419 F.2d ex rel. (3d Cir.1969); Kobli, supra, United States v. Rundle, 921; States, supra; States 37. United ex rel. Bennett Tanksley 172 v. United su- States, 59; supra. States, Davis v. United pra, Davis United Cir.1917); Henderson, F. IP v. (S.D.N.Y.1989); Kobli, F.Supp. Shep- supra; Tanksley 38. United States v. Conn, 128; States, States, pard, supra, supra; 438 A.2d at Davis v. United United Jones, 409, 416, States, People supra; 47 N.Y.2d 418 N.Y.S.2d Kleinbart v. United 359, 363-64, N.E.2d See A.2d at 882. courtroom, constituting repudia- filing quash, a flat motion to which was him, public. available and could have nullified tion that the were any harmful that flowed effect have Moreover, exclu- do not find that the we subpoena. issuance a denial of sion of five relatives constituted majority basely persons The that the exclud- concludes The five were possible for explanation they potential sole the State’s were witnesses. ed because exclude the relatives and in record to show was to There no evidence is friend, easier for spectators family, therefore make it that other — prevaricate stand children to on witness excluded. From or otherwise—were support father them. that record, evidentiary about how their molested is no reasons, majority’s logic were For several relatives or friends all fact, persuade. support of does not In affidavits in excluded. reflect that appellant’s motion new trial First, attorneys all who actual and a Linda Sams a Brenda Sams that, experience in the name of cau- know present during the entire trial. tion, sub- possible all witnesses should be court, does not necessitate found poenaed. up, That fact Summed as square For all those will called. convicted fair and appellant that witnesses was attorney leave and no excluded example, experienced open will in an forum one was short, in if it oc- for use no closure witnesses reserve rebuttal from that forum. Furthermore, experi- necessary. curred. becomes attorneys should know that enced trial at- assistant majority excoriates the into the very rarely delves motivation willfully stating torney general, that he subpoena a wit- desire to party’s

behind rights appellant’s constitutional “trampled” ness. subpoenas “as a used Second, “crystal Con- majority says relatives removal.” to obtain the attorney general reflects an versely, that the assistant the evidence clear” to the which fairly to call the relatives who convicted on evidence never intended re- reading reprehensible ex- gross, stand. Yet shows acts of witness abusing mi- opinion transcript majority’s pulsive sexually in the cerpted conduct conduct, which nor For reveals the assistant children. reason- might guilty beyond call him very jury he well them found said that court’s doubt, that it affirm the trial trial court related able I would witnesses. subpoenaed judgment. the State not believe that purpose sole those witnesses therefore, is, con- mere

excluding them. It that the majority to assume

jecture calling them. no had intention

Furthermore, as fact trial court found from no one was excluded entering into prevented

no one

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Sams

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

Date Published: Oct 2, 1990

Citation: 802 S.W.2d 635

Court Abbreviation: Tenn. Crim. App.