Tolbert v. State

Appellate brief attributed a purported general rule about accident to Sanders and Shaw, but the Court found neither case discusses accident nor contains the quoted language.

Counsel attributed a prosecutor remark in the brief that does not appear in the transcript; the Court compared the cited page and found the transcript contained different language.

Counsel attributed a direct quote to trial counsel about bifurcation that the Court could not find in the record; the Court found trial counsel's actual testimony was different.

Counsel cited Harris v. State and Ross v. State as supporting insufficiency/self-defense propositions; the Court found these cases do not discuss those issues and do not support the cited propositions.

Counsel relied on Laney for the proposition that a jury must be instructed on particular 'forcible felony,' but the Court noted Laney has been long overruled; citing it without caution was misleading.