Craigmire v. State
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
1999 WL 508445
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Craigmire was convicted of being a habitual criminal under a Tennessee state statute that provided for this conviction if a defendant had been convicted of a certain number of previous crimes. The statue did not require or allow for the nature or seriousness of the prior convictions to be an element under consideration in a habitual-criminal prosecution. At Craigmire’s trial, Craigmire’s attorney attempted to claim in his closing argument that Craigmire’s prior convictions were too minor to warrant his conviction for the habitual-criminal charge. This argument essentially amounted to a request for jury nullification because Craigmire had in fact been convicted of the requisite number of previous offenses required under the law. The trial judge admonished the defense attorney not to make this jury-nullification argument and threatened to hold the attorney in contempt if he continued doing so. Craigmire was convicted and appealed. In his appeal, Craigmire argued that the judge had violated his constitutional rights by restricting the ability of his defense attorney to argue for jury nullification.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ogle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
