Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. LaJuan Harbison

Tenn.January 9, 2018No. E2015-00700-SC-R11-CDCited 98 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Justice Sharon G. Lee
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Tennessee Supreme Court from Court of Criminal Appeals reversal; remanded for resentencing

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' reversal, reinstated Harbison's convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and firearm employment during dangerous felonies, and remanded for resentencing. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, that double jeopardy was not violated by multiple firearm convictions for different victims, and that waiver of the double jeoparty issue did not occur.

Excerpt

A jury convicted LaJuan Harbison of four counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in denying Harbison's request for a separate trial, that his multiple convictions for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, and that the evidence was insufficient to support one of the counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. We granted the State's application for permission to appeal to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion by denying Harbison's motion for severance whether Harbison waived the double jeopardy issue and if not, whether Harbison's convictions for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony violate the prohibition against double jeopardy where he used one firearm but was convicted of multiple dangerous felonies against different victims. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harbison's request for a separate trial Harbison did not waive the double jeopardy issue and his multiple convictions for employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, reinstate Harbison's three convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and three convictions for employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and remand to the trial court for resentencing and corrected judgments.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved LaJuan Harbison, who was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and illegally using firearms during dangerous crimes. Harbison appealed his convictions, arguing that he should have had separate trials for different charges and that being convicted multiple times for firearm offenses violated his constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy). **What the court decided:** The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld Harbison's original convictions. The court ruled that the trial judge was right to deny separate trials, and that having multiple firearm convictions for crimes against different victims did not violate double jeopardy protections. The case was sent back to a lower court only for resentencing. **Why this matters for workers:** While this appears to be primarily a criminal case rather than a workplace employment law matter, it demonstrates how courts handle situations where someone faces multiple related charges. The ruling clarifies that separate convictions for crimes against different victims are legally permissible, which could be relevant in workplace violence cases or situations where employees face multiple criminal charges stemming from workplace incidents.

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

Similar Rulings

Derinda Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc.
Tenn.Apr 2022

Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Win
Bethany Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC
Tenn.Sep 2021

Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the "trial court") denied the motion and denied Employer's motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee's claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.

Defendant Win

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.