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.
11 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 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. Owensgreen2 sentences2024The court held that in order to constitute the offense of robbery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-401, “the use of violence or fear must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking of property from the person.” Id. 2012Appellant argues that his conviction for especially aggravated robbery cannot stand “[b]ecause the victim’s serious bodily injury did not precede or occur contemporaneously with the aggravated robbery.” In support, appellant cites our supreme court’s holding in State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tenn. 2000), that “that the use of violence or fear must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking of property from the person to constitute the offense of robbery under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 .” However, appellant’s reliance on Owens is misguided. | 5 | 7 |
State v. Fitzgreen2 sentences2014However, the Tennessee Supreme Court has previously held that “the plain meaning of the element of violence as used in the offense of robbery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 is -19- evidence of physical force unlawfully exercised so as to damage, injure or abuse.” State v. Fitz, 19 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tenn. 2000). “‘The fear constituting an element of [robbery] is fear of present personal peril from violence offered or impending.’” State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69, 80 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting Britt v. State, 26 Tenn. (7 Hum.) 45 (1846)). 2003In State v. Fitz, 19 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tenn. 2000), our supreme court examined what evidence constituted proof of “violence.” The court concluded that the plain meaning of the element of violence as used in the offense of robbery pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-401 is “physical force unlawfully exercised so as to damage, injure or abuse.” Id. at 217 ; see also State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tenn. 2002). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2015Turning to the required elements of violence and placing the victims in fear for the convictions of aggravated robbery, our supreme court has held that “pointing a deadly weapon at the victim constitutes „violence‟ as used in the offense of robbery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 .” State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 185 (Tenn. 2002). 2003In State v. Fitz, 19 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tenn. 2000), our supreme court examined what evidence constituted proof of “violence.” The court concluded that the plain meaning of the element of violence as used in the offense of robbery pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-401 is “physical force unlawfully exercised so as to damage, injure or abuse.” Id. at 217 ; see also State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tenn. 2002). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bowlesgreen2 sentences2014However, the Tennessee Supreme Court has previously held that “the plain meaning of the element of violence as used in the offense of robbery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 is -19- evidence of physical force unlawfully exercised so as to damage, injure or abuse.” State v. Fitz, 19 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tenn. 2000). “‘The fear constituting an element of [robbery] is fear of present personal peril from violence offered or impending.’” State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69, 80 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting Britt v. State, 26 Tenn. (7 Hum.) 45 (1846)). 2010State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69, 80 (Tenn. 2001). “[T]he use of violence or fear must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking of property from the person to constitute the offense of robbery under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 .” State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tenn. 2000). | 2 | 2 |
Register v. Stategreen1 sentence2000State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634, 639 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Register v. State, 97 So.2d 919, 921-22 (1957)). “[T]he plain meaning of violence as used in the offense of robbery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 is evidence of physical force unlawfully exercised so as to damage, injure or abuse.” State v. Fitz, 19 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tenn. 2000). -12- The State argues that intent to rob can be formed either prior to, during, or after the acts which caused serious bodily injury. | 1 | 1 |
Mason v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000See Mason v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 253, 255-56 , 105 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1958); see also Kristine Cordier Kamezis, Annotation, Use of Force or Intimidation in Retaining Property or in Attempting to Escape, Rather than in Taking Property, as Element of Robbery, 93 A.L.R.3d 643 (1979 & Supp.1999); 67 Am.Jur.2d Robbery § 28 (1985 & Supp.1999). 5 . 2000See Mason v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 253, 255-56 , 105 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1958); see also Kristine Cordier Kamezis, Annotation, Use of Force or Intimidation in Retaining Property or in Attempting to Escape, Rather than in Taking Property, as Element of Robbery, 93 A.L.R.3d 643 (1979 & Supp.1999); 67 Am.Jur.2d Robbery § 28 (1985 & Supp.1999). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Britt v. State
green
1 sentence2014However, the Tennessee Supreme Court has previously held that “the plain meaning of the element of violence as used in the offense of robbery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 is -19- evidence of physical force unlawfully exercised so as to damage, injure or abuse.” State v. Fitz, 19 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tenn. 2000). “‘The fear constituting an element of [robbery] is fear of present personal peril from violence offered or impending.’” State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69, 80 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting Britt v. State, 26 Tenn. (7 Hum.) 45 (1846)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Swift
green
1 sentence2012In State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tenn. 2000), our Supreme Court held that “the use of violence or fear must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking of property from the person to constitute the offense of robbery under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 .” In State v. Swift, 308 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2010), the Supreme Court reiterated the holding in Owens and said: We specifically rejected the continuous offense theory under which robbery is defined to extend to situations in which force is used after the taking, such as to retain property or facilitate escape. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.