Dave was extremely professional but more importantly I was treated as a person not a case. He always returned calls and emails in a very timely manner. I would definitely recommend Dave to help with legal needs! -Jennifer S.

As someone who never had a lawyer, David made everything as simple as possible. He is very easy to communicate with and provides all the answers and support you will ever need. If I ever need a lawyer again, David will be my first choice to contact. -Andrew

I was falsely accused of something and had an order filed against me. Ben represented me during court and successfully had the order dismissed. He also went above and beyond to make sure it would not show up on my record. – Brittany.

Home » Blog » Severances, Transferred Intent, and Double Jeopardy

Severances, Transferred Intent, and Double Jeopardy


CaseState of Tennessee v. Lajuan Harbison


(1) When should co-defendants have separate trials?

(2) Can transferred intent support a voluntary manslaughter conviction?

(3) Can a person receive multiple convictions for employing a firearm during a single criminal episode?

Facts:  Defendant was convicted of four counts of voluntary manslaughter and four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, Defendant argued that his case should have been severed from a co-defendant, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the firearm convictions violated double jeopardy.

Appellate Decision:  The intermediate court reversed the convictions on each issue. First, the court held that the co-defendants should have been severed. The co-defendants were apparently in rival gangs, and trying them together “clearly created a hostile atmosphere.” This Defendant’s statements were redacted to remove references to co-defendants over his objections that the entire interview was exculpatory. The co-defendants’ statements were highly prejudicial to him and had a “spillover effect.” All co-defendants are both defendants and victims depending on which count is being addressed. As a result, this Defendant was “clearly prejudiced” from being tried with the others.

Second, Defendant’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter was based on a theory of transferred intent. Evidence showed that the Defendant was provoked by his co-defendants, not the victim, and “Voluntary manslaughter requires that the act of the slayer be the result of provocation instigated by the person slain.”

Third, Defendant should only been convicted of a single count of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony since there was a “single offending act” of employing a firearm notwithstanding the number of guns or bullets.

Review Granted:  December 14, 2016.

Prediction:  Ben thinks the Supreme Court will affirm for each of the reasons identified by the intermediate court.