corroboration requirement in Tennessee

27 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2025 8 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.

Followed or applied (27)

Case	Followed	Cited
STATE of Tennessee v. DeWayne COLLIER AKA Patrick Colliergreen tenn · 2013 · cited in 4 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2024 2 sentences 2024To the contrary, we have consistently given retroactive effect to decisions overruling criminal- law precedents even when those decisions disadvantaged the defendant. 6 In State v. Collier, this Court partially abrogated the exact same accomplice-corroboration rule that is at issue here by holding that “the testimony of a victim of statutory rape does not require corroboration.” 411 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tenn. 2013).4 The defendant in that case relied on the corroboration rule to argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. 2024To the contrary, we have consistently given retroactive effect to decisions overruling criminal- law precedents even when those decisions disadvantaged the defendant. 6 In State v. Collier, this Court partially abrogated the exact same accomplice-corroboration rule that is at issue here by holding that “the testimony of a victim of statutory rape does not require corroboration.” 411 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tenn. 2013).4 The defendant in that case relied on the corroboration rule to argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.	3	4
Opper v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1954 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2008–2017 2 sentences 2017In State v. Bishop, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “[a] statement made under oath in open court . . . requires no independent corroboration” and “the corroboration rule applies only to extrajudicial confessions.” 431 S.W. 22 , 60, 62 (Tenn. 2014) (citing Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 90 (1954)). 2008It is acknowledged that the corroboration rule “infringe[s] on the province of the primary finder of facts . . . [and] restrict[s] the power of the jury to convict.” Housler, 193 S.W.3d at 490 . (citing Smith, 348 U.S. at 153 , 75 S. Ct. at 198-99 ).	1	3
Sherrill v. Stategreen tenn · 1959 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2012–2013 2 sentences 2013Deeming the corroboration requirement a “very salutary rule,” the Court indicated that the testimony of minor sex offense victims “should be taken with great caution” and rejected a contention by the State that corroboration should not be required in the case of “children of tender years [who] are incapable of consenting to [the crime charged].” Id. 2012See, e.g., Sherrill v. State, 321 S.W.2d 811, 815 (Tenn. 1959) (“[C]orroboration need not of itself be adequate to support a conviction.”).	1	2
State v. Lucasgreen nj · 1959 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Pursuant to the modified trustworthiness standard, “a defendant’s extrajudicial confession is sufficient to support a conviction only if the State introduces ‘independent proof of facts and circumstances which strengthen or bolster the confession and tend to generate a belief in its trustworthiness, plus independent proof of loss or injury.’” Id. at 58 (quoting State v. Lucas, 152 A.2d 50, 60 (N.J. 1959)).	1	1
State of Tennessee v. Tony Thomas and LaRonda Turner (Concur in Part and Dissent in Part)green tenn · 2024 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024Pursuant to the modified trustworthiness standard, “a defendant’s extrajudicial confession is sufficient to support a conviction only if the State introduces ‘independent proof of facts and circumstances which strengthen or bolster the confession and tend to generate a belief in its trustworthiness, plus independent proof of loss or injury.’” Id. at 58 (quoting State v. Lucas, 152 A.2d 50, 60 (N.J. 1959)). 2024Our supreme court clarified the corroboration requirement in State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014), abrogated by Thomas, 687 S.W.3d at 229.	1	1
State v. Crawfordred tenn · 1971 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See State v. Crawford, 470 S.W.2d 610, 612 (Tenn. 1971).	1	1
State v. Andersongreen tenncrimapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018“An accomplice is defined as a person who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of the crime.” State v. Anderson, 985 S.W.2d 9, 16 (Tenn. Crim.	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen tenn · 2005 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Bolden v. State, 140 Tenn. 118, 120 , 203 S.W. 755 , 755 (1918); see also State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361, 393 (Tenn.2005); State v. Ogbeiwi, No. W2010-00117-CCA-R3CD, 2011 WL 3276188 , at *14 (Tenn.Crim.App.	1	1
State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom, a/k/a Otis Smithgreen tenn · 2004 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014“An ex post facto violation under article I, section 11 of the Tennessee Constitution occurs whenever a law (1) ‘provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was committed, was innocent,’ (2) ‘aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed,’ (3) ‘changes punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed,’ (4) ‘changes the rules of evidence and receives (sic) less or different testimony than was required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender,’ an	1	1
United States v. Browngreen ca6 · 2010 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See United States v. Brown, 617 F.3d at 863 (finding that a defendant’s confession *60 concerning a robbery established the trustworthiness of another part of his confession that identified the defendant as a felon in possession of a firearm).	1	1
State v. Heigesgreen minn · 2011 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
State v. Parkergreen nc · 1985 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom. 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
State v. Truegreen neb · 1982 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom. 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
Jacinth v. Stategreen alaska · 1979 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
State v. Zyskgreen nh · 1983 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom. 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
State v. Francis Noboru Yoshidagreen haw · 1960 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom. 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
State v. Haffordgreen conn · 2000 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom. 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
Stout v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
Harrison v. United Statesgreen dc · 1971 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	1
Miller v. Stategreen tenn · 1979 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014“An ex post facto violation under article I, section 11 of the Tennessee Constitution occurs whenever a law (1) ‘provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was committed, was innocent,’ (2) ‘aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed,’ (3) ‘changes punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed,’ (4) ‘changes the rules of evidence and receives (sic) less or different testimony than was required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender,’ an	1	1
United States v. Herman Sheppardgreen cadc · 1978 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See United States v. Sheppard, 569 F.2d 114, 118 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“The corroboration requirement poses a potentially severe obstacle to legitimate convictions for sex offenses.	1	1
State v. Byersgreen idaho · 1981 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Operation of the rule serves to foreclose jury consideration of cases in which a highly credible complainant prosecutes charges, on the basis of her testimony alone, against a defendant whose account of the events is clearly less credible.” (footnote omitted)); Byers, 627 P.2d at 790 (observing that unnecessarily requiring corroboration of victims’ testimony “prevents both the reporting and the successful prosecuting of sex crimes”).	1	1
Scott v. Stategreen tenn · 1960 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Citing Sherrill , the Court held that the corroboration requirement applied “in sex cases even where the accomplice is a child of such tender years as to be incapable of consenting to such crime.” Id. at 583.	1	1
State v. Bigbeered tenn · 1994 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
People v. Hamiltongreen cal · 1989 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
State v. Henleygreen tenn · 1989 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
Stanley v. Stategreen tenn · 1949 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Bishop yellow tenn · 2014 2 sentences 2024Our supreme court clarified the corroboration requirement in State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014), abrogated by Thomas, 687 S.W.3d at 229. 2022Our supreme court clarified the corroboration requirement in State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014).	9	2014–2024
State of Tennessee v. Fred Chad Clark, II green tenn · 2014 2 sentences 2020“The corroboration requirement is a low threshold.” Clark, 452 S.W.3d at 280 . 2020In State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2014), the Supreme Court stated: In State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014), we recently clarified the corroboration rule in Tennessee.	6	2015–2025
Smith v. United States green scotus · 1954 2 sentences 2014Rather than applying the traditional rule (and overturning the conviction) or finding the corroboration requirement inapplicable to crimes with no tangible injury, the Court employed a different sort of corroboration requirement: “[For] crimes in which there is no tangible corpus delicti ... the corroborative evidence must implicate the accused in order to show that a crime has been committed.” Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. at 154, 75 S.Ct. 194 . 2008It is acknowledged that the corroboration rule “infringe[s] on the province of the primary finder of facts . . . [and] restrict[s] the power of the jury to convict.” Housler, 193 S.W.3d at 490 . (citing Smith, 348 U.S. at 153 , 75 S. Ct. at 198-99 ).	3	2006–2014
Brady v. Maryland green scotus · 1963 1 sentence 2021The Petitioner also asserted that the failure to produce the documents was a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because the documents were exculpatory in that the witnesses made “contradictory statements.” He further contended that the statements made to federal prosecutors were inconsistent with trial testimony.	1	2021–2021
Bolden v. State green tenn · 1918 1 sentence 2014Bolden v. State, 140 Tenn. 118, 120 , 203 S.W. 755 , 755 (1918); see also State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361, 393 (Tenn.2005); State v. Ogbeiwi, No. W2010-00117-CCA-R3CD, 2011 WL 3276188 , at *14 (Tenn.Crim.App.	1	2014–2014
Wiggins v. State green tenn · 1973 1 sentence 2014Just as “[t]his Court will not upset a seemingly inconsistent verdict by speculating as to the jury’s reasoning if we are satisfied that the evidence establishes guilt of the offense upon which the conviction was returned,” Wiggins v. State, 498 S.W.2d at 94 , in the context of applying the corroboration rule to a felony murder conviction, this Court will not require the State to provide independent corroboration of the predicate felony so long as the State pro *50 vides independent corroboration of the non-accidental death of the victim. 16 We have also held for almost a century that proving	1	2014–2014
People v. LaRosa green colo · 2013 1 sentence 2014Jacinth v. State, 593 P.2d 263, 266 (Alaska 1979); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 575-78 ; State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 , 746 A.2d 150, 174 (2000); Harrison v. United States, 281 A.2d 222, 224-25 (D.C.1971); State v. Yoshida, 44 Haw. 352 , 354 P.2d 986, 990-92 (1960); State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn.2011); State v. True, 210 Neb. 701 , 316 N.W.2d 623, 625 (1982); State v. Zysk, 123 N.H. 481 , 465 A.2d 480, 483 (1983); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 622 (Okla.Crim.App.1984), cert. denied sub. nom.	1	2014–2014
State v. Housler green tenn · 2006	1	2008–2008
State v. Smith green tenn · 2000	1	2006–2006
Phillips v. State green tenn · 1848	1	1980–1980

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-501 (5) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (4) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-522 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 213 (1967–2025) TX 148 (1979–2026) CA 120 (1945–2026) MO 67 (1911–2024) IL 63 (1977–2024) OH 57 (1980–2026) WA 48 (1981–2025) GA 48 (1931–2025) MA 43 (1984–2025) DC 41 (1963–2019) WI 29 (1987–2025) OR 28 (1968–2024) TN 27 (1979–2025) CT 26 (1964–2024) ID 26 (1947–2026) MD 26 (1967–2023) VA 21 (1994–2025) NJ 21 (1944–2026) IA 21 (1966–2026) AL 17 (1980–2016) MN 14 (1951–2026) LA 14 (1994–2018) SD 13 (2001–2024) FL 12 (1967–2025) SC 11 (1999–2024) WV 9 (1981–2023) AZ 9 (1980–2023) PA 8 (1974–2023) CO 8 (1989–2019) NE 7 (1988–2014) NV 7 (1980–2017) MI 7 (1976–2020) IN 6 (1988–2020) ND 6 (1990–2016) NM 6 (1972–2017) KS 5 (2002–2015) OK 5 (1976–2018) AK 5 (1976–2021) UT 5 (2003–2025) KY 5 (1998–2014) RI 5 (1980–2024) MS 4 (2002–2020) NC 3 (1977–1985) DE 3 (1997–2018) MT 3 (1938–2003) VT 2 (1987–1994) AR 2 (1980–1987) ME 2 (1830–1981)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance