State v. Coulter
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
67 S.W.3d 3 (2001)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Larry Coulter (defendant) was charged with first-degree murder based on the shooting death of his estranged wife. Coulter asserted that the shooting was impulsive and had not been premeditated. He stated that he did not remember applying pressure to the gun’s trigger and instead just heard the gun discharge. To support its theory that the shooting was premeditated, the State of Tennessee (plaintiff) presented testimony from a firearms expert. The expert explained that a person would need to apply 12 pounds of pressure to the gun’s trigger to fire the gun without cocking the hammer first. After the expert’s testimony, the prosecutor asked the court to let each member of the jury pull the trigger of the gun so the jurors could see whether it was easy or difficult. Coulter’s counsel argued that the gun was a trial exhibit, and the jurors could pull the trigger during deliberations. But the prosecutor said that it was important to ensure that each juror pulled the trigger because Coulter’s assertions in his own defense made it sound like the gun could effectively fire by itself. The court overruled Coulter’s objection and allowed each member of the jury to pull the trigger. Coulter was ultimately convicted, and he appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ogle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
