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.
32 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1935–2020 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 v. Hansongreen2 sentences2020“The refusal to grant a special request for instruction is error only when the general charge does not fully and fairly state the applicable law.” State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 280 (Tenn. 2009). 2019“The refusal to grant a special request for instruction is error only when the general charge does not fully and fairly state the applicable law.” Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 280 . | 4 | 6 |
State v. Vanngreen2 sentences2004“Where the trial court’s instructions on a matter are proper, its denial of a special request is not error.” State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 114 (Tenn. 1998); see also State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, 521 (Tenn. 1997). 2003State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 114 (Tenn. 1998). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2004Cole v. State, 187 Tenn. 459 , 215 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tenn. 1948); State v. Foster, 755 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Tenn. Crim. 2002Cole v. State, . . . 215 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tenn. 1948); State v. Foster, 755 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Tenn. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Cole v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Cole v. State, 187 Tenn. 459 , 215 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tenn. 1948); State v. Foster, 755 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Tenn. Crim. 2004Cole v. State, 187 Tenn. 459 , 215 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tenn. 1948); State v. Foster, 755 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Tenn. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Shell v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Shell v. State, 584 S.W.2d 231, 235 (Tenn. Crim. 1998Shell v. State, 584 S.W.2d 231, 235 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Haynesgreen2 sentences2010See Tenn. R.Crim.P. 30(a); State v. Cravens, 764 S.W.2d 754, 757-58 (Tenn. 1989); State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76, 84-85 (Tenn. Crim. 2000See Tenn.R.Crim.P. 30(a), (b); State v. Cravens, 764 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn.1989); State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76, 84-85 (Tenn.Crim.App.1986); Bolton v. State, 591 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Forbesgreen2 sentences2005Cozart, 54 S.W.3d at 245 ; State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431, 447 (Tenn. Crim. 1999State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431, 447 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Storygreen2 sentences1999State v. Story, 608 S.W.2d 599, 603 (Tenn. Crim. 1987See State v. Story, 608 S.W.2d 599, 603 (Tenn.Cr.App.1980). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dorantesgreen2 sentences2014“The refusal to grant a special request for an instruction is error only when the general charge fails to fully and fairly provide the applicable law, considering the instructions in their entirety and reading them as a whole rather than in isolation.” Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 390 . 2011“The refusal to grant a special request for an instruction is error only when the general charge fails to fully and fairly provide the applicable law, considering the instructions in their entirety and reading them as a whole rather than in isolation.” State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 390 (Tenn. 2011). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cravensgreen2 sentences2010See Tenn. R.Crim.P. 30(a); State v. Cravens, 764 S.W.2d 754, 757-58 (Tenn. 1989); State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76, 84-85 (Tenn. Crim. 2000See Tenn.R.Crim.P. 30(a), (b); State v. Cravens, 764 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn.1989); State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76, 84-85 (Tenn.Crim.App.1986); Bolton v. State, 591 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Garrisongreen1 sentence2020The instruction given was a correct and complete jury charge, see State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000), and contained no statement which was inaccurate, inapplicable, or confusing, see State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788, 812 (Tenn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hatchergreen1 sentence2020The instruction given was a correct and complete jury charge, see State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000), and contained no statement which was inaccurate, inapplicable, or confusing, see State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788, 812 (Tenn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacKeygreen1 sentence2019See State v. Mackey, 638 S.W.2d 830, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982) (stating that Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 30(a) “envisions that such requests be made in writing” and an oral request for a jury instruction is not sufficient for an appellate court to find that a trial court erred by refusing to give the instruction.) An appellate court may consider a request for jury instruction waived when not made in writing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leachgreen1 sentence2012“In determining whether instructions are erroneous, th[e] Court must review the charge in its entirety and read it as a whole.” State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42, 58 (Tenn. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manngreen1 sentence2004“Where the trial court’s instructions on a matter are proper, its denial of a special request is not error.” State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 114 (Tenn. 1998); see also State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, 521 (Tenn. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Sloan v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Special Jury Instruction Third, the Appellant argues that the “trial judge erred in refusing to grant the defendant’s special request for instruction.” He contends that the trial court’s jury instruction on identity pursuant to State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607, 612 (Tenn. 1995), did “not adequately cover [his] theory as to the suggestiveness of the identification procedure, and therefore, was inadequate.” The Appellant based upon Sloan v. State, 584 S.W.2d 461, 468-470 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dylegreen1 sentence2002Special Jury Instruction Third, the Appellant argues that the “trial judge erred in refusing to grant the defendant’s special request for instruction.” He contends that the trial court’s jury instruction on identity pursuant to State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607, 612 (Tenn. 1995), did “not adequately cover [his] theory as to the suggestiveness of the identification procedure, and therefore, was inadequate.” The Appellant based upon Sloan v. State, 584 S.W.2d 461, 468-470 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rowan v. Stategreen2 sentences1974See Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224 , 369 S.W.2d 543 ; Butler v. State, 185 Tenn. 686 , 207 S.W.2d 584 ; Hancock v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 116, 430 S.W.2d 892 . 1974See Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224 , 369 S.W.2d 543 ; Butler v. State, 185 Tenn. 686 , 207 S.W.2d 584 ; Hancock v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 116, 430 S.W.2d 892 . | 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. Cozart
red
2 sentences2011Id. 2009Id. | 3 | 2005–2011 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2006Anderson, 985 S.W.2d at 17 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bolton v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Tenn.R.Crim.P. 30(a), (b); State v. Cravens, 764 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn.1989); State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76, 84-85 (Tenn.Crim.App.1986); Bolton v. State, 591 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Norris
green
1 sentence1998Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Copeland
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hancock v. State
green
2 sentences1974See Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224 , 369 S.W.2d 543 ; Butler v. State, 185 Tenn. 686 , 207 S.W.2d 584 ; Hancock v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 116, 430 S.W.2d 892 . 1974See Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224 , 369 S.W.2d 543 ; Butler v. State, 185 Tenn. 686 , 207 S.W.2d 584 ; Hancock v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 116, 430 S.W.2d 892 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Butler v. State
neutral
2 sentences1974See Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224 , 369 S.W.2d 543 ; Butler v. State, 185 Tenn. 686 , 207 S.W.2d 584 ; Hancock v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 116, 430 S.W.2d 892 . 1974See Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224 , 369 S.W.2d 543 ; Butler v. State, 185 Tenn. 686 , 207 S.W.2d 584 ; Hancock v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 116, 430 S.W.2d 892 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Coffin v. United States
green
2 sentences1935Referring to the treatment of presumption by Thayer, Treatise on Evidence, 314, Appendix B, p. 551, and 5 Wigmore on Evidence (2 Ed.), p. 505, as criticizing Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S., 432 , 15 S. Ct., 394 , 39 L. 1935Referring to the treatment of presumption by Thayer, Treatise on Evidence, 314, Appendix B, p. 551, and 5 Wigmore on Evidence (2 Ed.), p. 505, as criticizing Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S., 432 , 15 S. Ct., 394 , 39 L. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.