25 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 5 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. Callahangreen2 sentences2026The so-called “Callahan factors” include: (1) consideration of all circumstances surrounding the interrogation including the juvenile’s age, experience, education, and intelligence; (2) the juvenile’s capacity to understand the Miranda warnings and the consequences of the waiver; (3) the juvenile’s familiarity with Miranda warnings or the ability to read and write in the language used to give the warnings; (4) any intoxication; (5) any mental disease, disorder, or retardation; and (6) the presence of a parent, guardian, or interested adult. - 22 - Id. 2024In State v. Callahan, our supreme court held that “juvenile waivers shall be analyzed under a totality-of-the-circumstances test” and that courts should consider the following factors: (1) . . . all circumstances surrounding the interrogation including the juvenile’s age, experience, education, and intelligence; (2) the juvenile’s capacity to understand the Miranda warnings and consequences of the waiver; (3) the juvenile’s familiarity with Miranda warnings or the ability to read and write in the language used to give the warnings; (4) any intoxication; (5) any mental disease, disorder, or ret | 12 | 25 |
Colorado v. Connellygreen2 sentences2026“While courts shall exercise special care in scrutinizing a juvenile suspect’s waiver, no single factor . . . should by itself render a confession unconstitutional absent coercive police activity.” Id. (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986)). 2017Our supreme court also stated that “[w]hile courts shall exercise special care in scrutinizing purported waivers by juvenile suspects, no single factor such as mental condition or education should by itself render a confession unconstitutional absent coercive police activity.” Id. (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Carrollgreen2 sentences2022Callahan, 979 S.W.2d at 583 ; State v. Carroll, 36 S.W.3d 854, 864 (Tenn. Crim. 2006The supreme court further stated that “[w]hile courts shall exercise special care in scrutinizing purported waivers by juvenile suspects, no single factor such as mental condition or education should by itself render a confession unconstitutional absent coercive police activity.” Id. “[T]he admissibility of a juvenile’s confession is not dependent upon the presence of his parents at the interrogation.” State v. Carroll, 36 S.W.3d 854, 864 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.