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.
5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2020 0 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 of Tennessee v. Courtney KNOWLESgreen2 sentences2020However, this deficiency was cured by the prosecutor’s closing argument and provided an “effective substitute for the missing instruction.” State v. Knowles, 470 S.W.3d 416, 427 (Tenn. 2015). 2019See State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289, 294 (Tenn. 2000); see also Shelton, 851 S.W.2d at 138 . 12 Our supreme court has concluded that a trial court’s “failure to instruct the jury properly about the State’s election of offenses may be cured by a prosecutor’s closing argument if it provides an effective substitute for the missing instruction.” State v. Knowles, 470 S.W.3d 416, 427 (Tenn. 2015). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Sheltongreen1 sentence2019See State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289, 294 (Tenn. 2000); see also Shelton, 851 S.W.2d at 138 . 12 Our supreme court has concluded that a trial court’s “failure to instruct the jury properly about the State’s election of offenses may be cured by a prosecutor’s closing argument if it provides an effective substitute for the missing instruction.” State v. Knowles, 470 S.W.3d 416, 427 (Tenn. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289, 294 (Tenn. 2000); see also Shelton, 851 S.W.2d at 138 . 12 Our supreme court has concluded that a trial court’s “failure to instruct the jury properly about the State’s election of offenses may be cured by a prosecutor’s closing argument if it provides an effective substitute for the missing instruction.” State v. Knowles, 470 S.W.3d 416, 427 (Tenn. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Yancey
green
1 sentence2011The court then concluded that if the trial court were allowed to “fill in the gaps” by considering the missing factors, this “would extend de novo review over the district attorney general’s decision and would allow the trial court to substitute its view over the pretrial diversion decision-making process.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Carney v. Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Tullahoma
green
1 sentence2009Where the evidence is close, the missing instruction may have been the “single factor that turned the tide.” Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hensley v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009The parties have appropriately reminded us of a point of law we noted in Hensley I; i e., “State procedural rules give way to federal law if ‘application of [state] rules would interfere with a party’s substantive federal rights or defenses.’ ” Hensley I, 278 S.W.3d at 286 (quoting Pomeroy v. Illinois Cent. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.