A Washington County jury convicted appellant, Howard Hawk Willis, of two counts of premeditated first degree murder and one count of felony murder in the perpetration of a kidnapping. Following the penalty phase, the jury sentenced appellant to death on each conviction. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction into one of the convictions for premeditated first degree murder.

The audio of the oral argument in this game will be made available after October 21, 2015.

On appeal, appellant asserts that:

(1) the trial court erred in finding that appellant implicitly waived and forfeited his right to counsel and requiring him to proceed pro se at trial;

(2) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress his statements;

(3) the searches of the residence and the storage unit were unconstitutional;

(4) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s multiple motions to continue the trial; (5) the trial court erred in staying appellant’s funding and other privileges used in preparation for trial after this court granted an interlocutory appeal;

(6) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions;

(7) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s ex parte motions for expert services for a crime scene expert and a false confession expert;

(8) the trial court failed to apply a higher standard of due process in all aspects of the case;

(9) the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs;

(10) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments in both phases of the trial;

(11) the trial court erred in instructing the jury during the guilt phase;

(12) the aggravating circumstances upon which the State relied were not stated in the indictment;

(13) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to preclude for-cause removal of jurors who were not death qualified;

(14) Tennessee’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional;

(15) the trial court erred in failing to advise appellant with respect to his testimony during the penalty phase;

(16) the trial court failed to make an adequate inquiry into appellant’s competency to waive is right to present mitigating evidence;

(17) the trial court erred in instructing the jury during the penalty phase;

(18) the trial court erred in admitting victim impact evidence;

(19) the proportionality review is unconstitutional; and

(20) cumulative error warrants reversal

SAVE MONEY: Use the prepaid CLE credits that come with your TBA Complete Membership and take this course for free. Not a TBA member, join now to start saving.