Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bradengreen2 sentences2026The purpose of the chain of custody requirement is “to demonstrate that there has been no tampering, loss, substitution, or mistake with respect to the evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 759 (Tenn. Crim. 2023The chain of custody rule “is designed to insure ‘that there has been no tampering, loss, substitution, or mistake with respect to the evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 759 (Tenn. Crim. | 39 | 39 |
State v. Holbrooksgreen2 sentences2011See Scott, 33 S.W.3d at 752 (citing State v. Holbrooks, 983 S.W.2d 697, 701 (Tenn. Crim. 2010The purpose of the chain of custody requirement is “to demonstrate that there has been no tampering, loss, substitution, or mistake with respect to the evidence.” Id. (citing State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 759 (Tenn. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Scottgreen2 sentences2026The purpose of the chain of custody requirement is “to demonstrate that there has been no tampering, loss, substitution, or mistake with respect to the evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 759 (Tenn. Crim. 2022The purpose of the chain of custody requirement is “to demonstrate that there has been no tampering, loss, substitution, or mistake with respect to the evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 759 (Tenn. Crim. | 3 | 19 |
Whitfield v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Similarly, the Supreme Court of Delaware has ruled that “[f]actors relevant in a chain of custody analysis include ‘the nature of the article, the circumstances surrounding its preservation in custody, and the likelihood of intermeddlers having tampered with it.’” Whitfield v. State, 524 A.2d 13, 16 (Del. 1987) (quoting United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 374 (10th Cir. 1985)). 2008Similarly, the Supreme Court of Delaware has ruled that “[f]actors relevant in a chain of custody analysis include ‘the nature of the article, the circumstances surrounding its preservation in custody, and the likelihood of intermeddlers having tampered with it.’ ” Whitfield v. State, 524 A.2d 13, 16 (Del.1987) (quoting United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 374 (10th Cir.1985)). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Thomas Norman Gaygreen2 sentences2008Similarly, the Supreme Court of Delaware has ruled that “[f]actors relevant in a chain of custody analysis include ‘the nature of the article, the circumstances surrounding its preservation in custody, and the likelihood of intermeddlers having tampered with it.’” Whitfield v. State, 524 A.2d 13, 16 (Del. 1987) (quoting United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 374 (10th Cir. 1985)). 2008Similarly, the Supreme Court of Delaware has ruled that “[f]actors relevant in a chain of custody analysis include ‘the nature of the article, the circumstances surrounding its preservation in custody, and the likelihood of intermeddlers having tampered with it.’ ” Whitfield v. State, 524 A.2d 13, 16 (Del.1987) (quoting United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 374 (10th Cir.1985)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2001The identity of tangible evidence, however, need not be proven beyond all possibility of doubt, see State v. Holloman, 835 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992), and the State is not required to establish facts which exclude every possibility of tampering, see State v. Ferguson, 741 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). 2000The identity of tangible evidence, however, need not be proven beyond all possibility of doubt, see State v. Holloman, 835 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992), and the State is not required to establish facts which exclude every possibility of tampering, see State v. Ferguson, 741 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hollomangreen2 sentences2001The identity of tangible evidence, however, need not be proven beyond all possibility of doubt, see State v. Holloman, 835 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992), and the State is not required to establish facts which exclude every possibility of tampering, see State v. Ferguson, 741 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). 2000The identity of tangible evidence, however, need not be proven beyond all possibility of doubt, see State v. Holloman, 835 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992), and the State is not required to establish facts which exclude every possibility of tampering, see State v. Ferguson, 741 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kilpatrickgreen2 sentences2010In other words, the chain of custody rule “does not require absolute certainty of identification.” Id. (citing Ritter v. State, 462 S.W.2d 247 (Tenn. Crim. 2005In other words, the chain of custody rule “does not require absolute certainty of identification.” Id. (citing Ritter v. State, 462 S.W.2d 247 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ritter v. State
green
2 sentences2010In other words, the chain of custody rule “does not require absolute certainty of identification.” Id. (citing Ritter v. State, 462 S.W.2d 247 (Tenn. Crim. 2005In other words, the chain of custody rule “does not require absolute certainty of identification.” Id. (citing Ritter v. State, 462 S.W.2d 247 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2005–2010 |
State of Tennessee v. Kacy Dewayne Cannon
green
1 sentence2023The chain of custody rule “is designed to insure ‘that there has been no tampering, loss, substitution, or mistake with respect to the evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 759 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.