State of Tennessee v. Paul Clifford Moore, Jr.

Knoxville, Tennessee criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with first degree murder.



In July 2012, Petitioner was indicted for three counts of first degree murder for the shooting deaths of his wife, his wife's sister, and his wife's paramour. State v. Moore, No. E2015-00585-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 2865759, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 12, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2016). At trial, Petitioner "claimed that as a result of seeing the three victims engaged in sexual activity, he intended to commit suicide but instead the victims were killed." Id. The jury was instructed on first degree murder as charged, and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses. Id. at *6-7. The jury convicted Petitioner of three counts of second degree murder and the trial court imposed an effective thirty-year sentence. Id. at *1, *25. On direct appeal, among other challenges, Petitioner argued that "sequential jury instructions, like those given in his case, prevent a jury from ever returning a verdict of voluntary manslaughter." Id. at *19. Specifically, Petitioner argued that the jury instructions defined voluntary manslaughter as having the same two elements as second degree murder plus the additional element of a state of passion, but permitted the jury to consider voluntary manslaughter only after determining that Petitioner was not guilty of second degree murder. Id. This court noted that the jury instructions in Petitioner's case were "substantially in accordance with the Tennessee Pattern Jury instructions" and included the distinction between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter after the elements of both offenses. Id. This court affirmed Petitioner's convictions. Id. at *27. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied Petitioner's application for permission to appeal.



* * *



Legal issue Can the petitioner appeal the denial of his motion for plain error review regarding jury instructions under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3?

Headnote



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. APPEAL AS OF RIGHT. The case involved an appeal by the petitioner challenging the sequence of jury instructions regarding voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder, claiming the instructions prevented a fair verdict and asserting a right to appeal under several legal frameworks, which was ultimately dismissed as lacking a right of appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. The petitioner alleged that the trial court's sequential jury instructions prevented the jury from considering voluntary manslaughter simultaneously with or before second degree murder, arguing this violated his constitutional right to a fair trial, which the court previously addressed on direct appeal.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PLAIN ERROR REVIEW. The petitioner sought plain error review, claiming a miscarriage of justice due to improper jury instructions, but the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of entitlement to appeal as of right.



CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to challenge jury instructions, but the claim was deemed abandoned due to insufficient briefing and absence of proper legal argument.



Key Phrases Sequential jury instructions. Voluntary manslaughter. Appeal as of right. Ineffective assistance of counsel. Habeas corpus relief.

Affirmed