Adkisson test in Tennessee

2026In order to be granted relief under plain error relief, five criteria must be met: (1) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (2) a 6 We note that the Wilson court cited to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(iii), which is analogous to the current Rule 37(b)(2)(C). - 15 - clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (3) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (4) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (5) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” Id. at 640-41 ;

2026In order to be granted relief under plain error relief, five criteria must be met: (1) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (2) a 6 We note that the Wilson court cited to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(iii), which is analogous to the current Rule 37(b)(2)(C). - 15 - clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (3) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (4) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (5) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” Id. at 640-41 ;

2026In order to be granted relief under plain error relief, five criteria must be met: (1) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (2) a 6 We note that the Wilson court cited to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(iii), which is analogous to the current Rule 37(b)(2)(C). - 15 - clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (3) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (4) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (5) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” Id. at 640-41 ;

2026In order to be granted relief under plain error relief, five criteria must be met: (1) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (2) a 6 We note that the Wilson court cited to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(iii), which is analogous to the current Rule 37(b)(2)(C). - 15 - clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (3) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (4) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (5) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” Id. at 640-41 ;

2026Additionally, the “‘plain error’ must be of such a great magnitude that it probably changed the outcome of the trial.” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 642 (quoting United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 1988)).

2026Additionally, the “‘plain error’ must be of such a great magnitude that it probably changed the outcome of the trial.” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 642 (quoting United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 1988)).

2016It is misconduct for a prosecutor to “use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tenn. Crim.

2016It is misconduct for a prosecutor to “use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tenn. Crim.

2024“Moreover, the error must have been of ‘sufficient magnitude that it probably changed the outcome of the trial.’” State v. Vance, 596 S.W.3d 229 , 254 (Tenn. 2020) (quoting State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 119 (Tenn. 2008)).

2024“Moreover, the error must have been of ‘sufficient magnitude that it probably changed the outcome of the trial.’” State v. Vance, 596 S.W.3d 229 , 254 (Tenn. 2020) (quoting State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 119 (Tenn. 2008)).

2016See State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d 349, 355 (Tenn. 2007).

2014We have also held that plain error cannot be found unless the record establishes all of the elements of the Ad-kisson standard, State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d at 354 ; State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 283 , and that the courts need not consider all of the factors “when it is clear from the record that at least one of them cannot be satisfied,” State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 58 (Tenn.2010) (quoting State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d at 355 ).

2014See State v. Armstrong, 256 S.W.3d at 249 .

2014We have also held that plain error cannot be found unless the record establishes all of the elements of the Ad-kisson standard, State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d at 354 ; State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 283 , and that the courts need not consider all of the factors “when it is clear from the record that at least one of them cannot be satisfied,” State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 58 (Tenn.2010) (quoting State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d at 355 ).

2014We have also held that plain error cannot be found unless the record establishes all of the elements of the Ad-kisson standard, State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d at 354 ; State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 283 , and that the courts need not consider all of the factors “when it is clear from the record that at least one of them cannot be satisfied,” State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 58 (Tenn.2010) (quoting State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d at 355 ).

2013In United States v. Lawson, 780 F.2d 535, 540 (6th Cir. 1985), the Sixth Circuit held that a judge who had authorized a wiretap was permitted to preside over a suppression motion in the same action.

2013In United States v. Lawson, 780 F.2d 535, 540 (6th Cir. 1985), the Sixth Circuit held that a judge who had authorized a wiretap was permitted to preside over a suppression motion in the same action.

2007The trial court reiterated 5 No objection or special request for an omitted charge is required when the charge relates to an issue that is “fundamental to the defense and essential to a fair trial.” Poe v. State, 212 Tenn. 413, 420 , 370 S.W .2d 488, 491 (Tenn. 1963); see also Monts v. State, 214 Tenn. 171 , 379 S.W .2d 34, 40 (Tenn. 1964); Casey v. State, 491 S.W .2d 90, 94-95 (Tenn. Crim.

2007The trial court reiterated 5 No objection or special request for an omitted charge is required when the charge relates to an issue that is “fundamental to the defense and essential to a fair trial.” Poe v. State, 212 Tenn. 413, 420 , 370 S.W .2d 488, 491 (Tenn. 1963); see also Monts v. State, 214 Tenn. 171 , 379 S.W .2d 34, 40 (Tenn. 1964); Casey v. State, 491 S.W .2d 90, 94-95 (Tenn. Crim.

2007State v. Blackmon, 78 S.W.3d 322, 335-36 (Tenn. Crim.

2007State v. Blackmon, 78 S.W.3d 322, 335-36 (Tenn. Crim.

2000As the fourth factor in the Adkisson test recognizes, “it is well-established that [the] plain error rule is not applicable when the record reflects that a defendant made a deliberate, tactical choice to waive an objection.” State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 399 (Tenn.1995) (Anderson, C.J., concurring, joined by Drowota, J., and Birch, J.).

2000As the fourth factor in the Adkisson test recognizes, “it is well-established that [the] plain error rule is not applicable when the record reflects that a defendant made a deliberate, tactical choice to waive an objection.” State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 399 (Tenn.1995) (Anderson, C.J., concurring, joined by Drowota, J., and Birch, J.).