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 2011–2022 1 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. McGheegreen1 sentence2022The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that “‘where the record on a pretrial suppression motion or on a motion in limine clearly present an evidentiary question and where the trial judge has clearly and definitively ruled,’ defense counsel need not offer further objections to the trial court’s ruling.” State v. Walls, 537 S.W.3d 892, 899 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting State v. McGhee, 746 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tenn. 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Jo Wallsgreen1 sentence2022The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that “‘where the record on a pretrial suppression motion or on a motion in limine clearly present an evidentiary question and where the trial judge has clearly and definitively ruled,’ defense counsel need not offer further objections to the trial court’s ruling.” State v. Walls, 537 S.W.3d 892, 899 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting State v. McGhee, 746 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tenn. 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stephensongreen1 sentence2018The Tennessee Supreme Court has noted that “[c]losing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” State v. Stephenson, 195 S.W.3d 574, 603 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Banegreen1 sentence2018The Tennessee Supreme Court has noted that “[c]losing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” State v. Stephenson, 195 S.W.3d 574, 603 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Momon v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Defendant waived his right to testify consistent with Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152, 162-63 (Tenn.1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2011We see no merit in that complaint because, as appears from the above statement, defendant having at that time eight peremptory challenges which he could have exercised but did not do so.”); State v. Thompson, 36 S.W.3d 102, 108 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Howellgreen1 sentence2011“It is a long-settled principle that a defendant who disagrees with a trial court’s ruling on for cause challenges must, in order to preserve the claim that the ruling deprived him of a fair trial, exercise peremptory challenges to remove the jurors.” State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 248 (Tenn. 1993); see also State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 291 (Tenn. 2002) (“It is only where a defendant exhausts all of his peremptory challenges and is thereafter forced to accept an incompetent juror can a complaint about the jury selection process have merit.”); Hale v. State, 281 S.W.2d 51, 56 (Tenn. 1955) (“ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reidgreen1 sentence2011“It is a long-settled principle that a defendant who disagrees with a trial court’s ruling on for cause challenges must, in order to preserve the claim that the ruling deprived him of a fair trial, exercise peremptory challenges to remove the jurors.” State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 248 (Tenn. 1993); see also State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 291 (Tenn. 2002) (“It is only where a defendant exhausts all of his peremptory challenges and is thereafter forced to accept an incompetent juror can a complaint about the jury selection process have merit.”); Hale v. State, 281 S.W.2d 51, 56 (Tenn. 1955) (“ | 1 | 1 |
Hale v. Stategreen1 sentence2011“It is a long-settled principle that a defendant who disagrees with a trial court’s ruling on for cause challenges must, in order to preserve the claim that the ruling deprived him of a fair trial, exercise peremptory challenges to remove the jurors.” State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 248 (Tenn. 1993); see also State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 291 (Tenn. 2002) (“It is only where a defendant exhausts all of his peremptory challenges and is thereafter forced to accept an incompetent juror can a complaint about the jury selection process have merit.”); Hale v. State, 281 S.W.2d 51, 56 (Tenn. 1955) (“ | 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. Kendricks
green
1 sentence2015The trial court overruled defense counsel‘s objection to the admission of Mr. McKinley‘s statement and later stated, ―I didn‘t say it previously with regard to the prior witness, this Jarquez fellow, but I thought he was lying through his teeth, also feigning his lack of memory.‖ This court has stated that extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is appropriate if the witness ―denies or does not recall making the statement.‖ Kendricks, 947 S.W.2d at 882 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.