Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

State v. Combs

9/25/2002

person commits the offense of aggravated child abuse who "knowingly, other than by accidental means, treats a child under eighteen (18) years of age in such a manner as to inflict injury . . ." and " he act of abuse results in serious bodily injury to the child." Tenn. Code Ann. ยงยง 39-15-401, 402 (1997) (emphasis added). Consequently, proof that the Defendants injured Esther knowingly, which clearly infers non-accidental conduct, was necessary and proper to both rebut the testimony of Joseph Combs and assist in proving the offense of aggravated child abuse.


Our review of the testimonies of Gayland and Malinda Oaks reveals that this proof is also admissible to show confinement and a continuing course of conduct on grounds similar to those discussed above. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion or error with regard to the trial court's decisions to admit the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts in this case.


B. Admissibility Under Rules 401 and 403


The Defendants also contend that the trial court erred by admitting two sets of photographs as evidence at trial. The photographs in issue do not specifically concern prior bad acts, wrongs or criminal activity by either Defendant, and, in the case of Esther's scars, the photographs do not show the identity of the person who caused her injuries. Thus, this evidence was not inadmissible under Rule 404(b) as reflecting upon the character of the Defendants, and no 404(b) hearings were conducted prior to admitting this proof. See DuBose, 953 S.W.2d at 653 (where medical examiner's testimony did not show identity of the person who caused the victim's abdominal injuries, it was not prohibited by Rule 404(b) as reflecting upon the defendant's character). Rather, admissibility of this evidence is dependent upon the principles set forth in our rules of evidence regarding relevance. See Tenn. R. Evid. 401- 403.


Rule 401 of Tennessee's Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence to mean "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Rule 402 states that relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by our State and Federal Constitutions, and, conversely, irrelevant evidence, ipso facto, is not admissible. Tenn. R. Evid. 402. Rule 403 requires exclusion of evidence, even when relevant, if the "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Id. at 403.


With these principles in mind, we find the photographs of the scars on Esther's body were clearly admissible. Given that the Defendants were charged with various counts involving physical abuse and/or serious bodily injury , the condition of Esther's body is inordinately relevant. The photographs are further relevant to demonstrate the Defendants' "guilty knowledge" of Esther's injuries, effectively rebutting any claim of accident or mistake, and they showed the Defendants' intent to control and/or confine Esther through physical and, to a lesser extent, psychological torture. In addition, the sheer magnitude of Esther's injuries, disclosed by proof of more than 400 separate scars, indicated a continuing course of abusive conduct. We also find that the probative value of this evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or other negative considerations which would require the trial court to exclude it under the principles set forth in Rule 403 of Tennessee's Rules of Evidence.




Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 

Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE