208 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2025 4 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. Ashbygreen2 sentences2013See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102 , -103, -210; see also State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991). 2000Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (d); State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). -5- In conducting our de novo review, this court considers the following factors: (1) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the pre-sentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence and information offered by the parties on enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statement by the defendant in his own behalf; and (7) the potential for rehabilitati | 126 | 126 |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bisegreen2 sentences2024See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102, -103, -210 (2019); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98 . 2019See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102 , -103, -210; see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98 . | 67 | 67 |
Judge v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Judge v. State, 539 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tenn.Crim.App.1976). 2012In doing so, the court considers the following factors set forth in Judge v. State, 539 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tenn. Crim. | 7 | 7 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023Id. at 282-83 . 2002The record reflects that no limiting instruction was given. -10- (d) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error is ‘necessary to do substantial justice.’” State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bishopgreen1 sentence2025See Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 ; see also State v. Bishop, 493 S.W.2d 81, 83-85 (Tenn. 1973). | 1 | 1 |
Barker v. Wingogreen1 sentence2025See Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 ; see also State v. Bishop, 493 S.W.2d 81, 83-85 (Tenn. 1973). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buckgreen1 sentence2012App. 1976), and adopted by the supreme court in State v. Buck, 670 S.W.2d 600, 609 (Tenn. 1984): (1) the conduct complained of, viewed in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, (2) the curative measures undertaken by the court and the prosecutor, (3) the intent of the prosecutor in making the improper statement, (4) the cumulative effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record, and (5) the relative strength or weakness of the case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnbillgreen1 sentence2012State v. Turnbill, 640 S.W.2d 40, 46 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2010See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102 , -103, -210; see also State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 344-45 (Tenn. 2008); State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
North Carolina v. Alfordgreen2 sentences2001Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102 ,-103,-210 (1997); see also Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 168 . 2 A best interest guilty plea, also known as an Alford plea, may be entered by an appellant who wishes to plead guilty yet proclaim his innocenc e. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38 , 91 S. Ct. 160, 167-168 (1970). 2001Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102 ,-103,-210 (1997); see also Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 168 . 2 A best interest guilty plea, also known as an Alford plea, may be entered by an appellant who wishes to plead guilty yet proclaim his innocenc e. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38 , 91 S. Ct. 160, 167-168 (1970). | 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. Goltz
green
2 sentences2010In measuring the prejudicial effect of an improper argument, this court considers the following factors: “(1) the facts and circumstances of the case; (2) any curative measures undertaken by the court and the prosecutor; (3) the intent of the prosecution; (4) the cumulative effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record; and (5) the relative strength or weakness of the case.” Goltz, 111 S.W.3d at 5-6 . 2006In measuring the prejudicial affect of an improper argument, this court considers the following factors: “(1) the facts and circumstances of the case; (2) any curative measures undertaken by the court and the prosecutor; (3) the intent of the prosecution; (4) the cumulative effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record; and (5) the relative strength or weakness of the case.” Goltz, 111 S.W.3d at 5-6 . | 2 | 2006–2010 |
Henry v. Goins
green
1 sentence2023Accordingly, when evaluating a motion to set a judgment aside based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, a court considers the following factors: “(1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense;[6] and (3) whether the non-defaulting party would be prejudiced if relief were granted.” Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2011As to the defendant, this Court considers the following factors: “ ‘(1) prior criminal record, if any; (2) age, race, and gender; (3) mental, emotional, and physical condition; (4) role in the murder; (5). cooperation with authorities; (6) level of remorse; (7) knowledge of the victim’s helplessness; and (8) potential for rehabilitation.’” Id. . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Adkisson
green
1 sentence2002The record reflects that no limiting instruction was given. -10- (d) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error is ‘necessary to do substantial justice.’” State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.