State of Tennessee v. Dennis Ray Gilliland

Summary

The court held that admitting evidence of the defendant's involvement in an earlier shooting violated the governing character-evidence requirements because the evidence did not fill a significant chronological or conceptual gap and its prejudicial effect substantially exceeded its limited probative value. The error was harmless because the remaining circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established guilt. The court also held that withdrawing notice of an intent to seek the death penalty, without more, withdrew notice of an intent to seek life without parole, requiring modification of the sentence to life imprisonment.