Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Jabriel Linzy, Alias

TENNCRIMAPPAugust 18, 2017No. E2016-01052-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal of right from criminal convictions in trial court

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Appellate court affirmed the trial court's convictions of Jabriel Linzy for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and firearm employment during a dangerous felony, rejecting arguments regarding insufficient evidence and improper admission of social media evidence.

Excerpt

The Defendant, Jabriel Linzy, alias, appeals as of right from his convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The Defendant argues (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and (2) that evidence from social media posts was improperly admitted. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

What This Ruling Means

**Important Note: This case is not actually about employment law.** This case involved Jabriel Linzy, who was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and using a firearm during a dangerous crime. Linzy appealed his convictions to a higher court, arguing that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him and that social media posts used against him should not have been allowed in court. The appeals court disagreed with Linzy and upheld all of his criminal convictions. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdicts and that the social media evidence was properly admitted during the trial. **This case has no relevance for workers or employment rights.** Despite being labeled as an employment law case, this is actually a criminal appeal involving serious violent crimes. The term "employment of a firearm" in the charges refers to the criminal act of using a gun during a crime, not workplace employment. Workers should not draw any employment-related conclusions from this criminal case, as it deals entirely with criminal law rather than workplace rights, employer obligations, or employment disputes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.