Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Corey Allen Harris

TENNCRIMAPPMarch 22, 2022No. W2021-00030-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge John Everett Williams
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

The Defendant, Corey Allen Harris, was convicted after a jury trial of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and he received an effective eighteen-year sentence. The Defendant filed a motion for a new trial asserting that the evidence was insufficient and that the prosecutor's argument was so improper as to constitute plain error. On appeal, the Defendant renews the challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the prosecutor's closing argument, and he asks for relief based on the omission from the jury instructions of the statutory definition of attempt. Because the jury was not properly instructed on the elements of the offense of attempted second degree murder, we reverse the convictions for attempted second degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of attempted second degree murder, and we remand for further proceedings. The aggravated assault conviction is affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved Corey Allen Harris, who was convicted of serious violent crimes including attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and using a firearm during a dangerous felony. Harris received an 18-year prison sentence. After his conviction, he asked for a new trial, claiming there wasn't enough evidence to convict him and that the prosecutor made improper arguments during the trial. When that request was denied, he appealed to a higher court. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further review (called a "remand"). The court needed to take another look at Harris's claims about insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct before making a final decision. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case appears to be primarily a criminal matter rather than a traditional employment law dispute. While Harris is listed as an "employer" in the case details, the core issues involve criminal charges, not workplace rights or employment disputes. Workers should note that this case doesn't establish any new protections or precedents related to typical employment matters like wages, discrimination, or workplace safety. The criminal nature of the charges suggests this was likely a violent incident rather than a standard employment law issue.

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.