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.
25 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2021 2 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. Smithgreen2 sentences2015In State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282-83 (Tenn. 2000), our supreme court “formally” adopt this analysis, stating that “the Adkisson test provides a clear and meaningful standard for considering whether a trial error rises to the level of plain error in the absence of an objection.” In applying the Adkisson test, the Smith court stated: We re-emphasize that the presence of all five factors must be established by the record before this Court will recognize the existence of plain error, and complete consideration of all the factors is not necessary when it is clear from the record that at least o 2003App. 1994): The Court of Criminal Appeals has developed five factors to consider when deciding whether an error constitutes "plain error" in the absence of an objection at trial: "(a) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (b) a clear and unequivocal -7- rule of law must have been breached; (c) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (d) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error is 'necessary to do substantial justice.'" The court in Smith explained that “the presence of all five facto | 4 | 22 |
Jackson v. Statered2 sentences2014App. Mar. 9, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2011), which states that such verdicts occur when a jury “‘necessarily reached two positive findings of fact that cannot logically mutually exist.’” Id. at *10 (quoting Jackson v. State, 577 S.E.2d 570, 574 (Ga. 2003)). 2014App. Mar. 9, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2011), which states that such verdicts occur when a jury “‘necessarily reached two positive findings of fact that cannot logically mutually exist.’” Id. at *10 (quoting Jackson v. State, 577 S.E.2d 570, 574 (Ga. 2003)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Adkisson
green
2 sentences2001The presence of all five factors must be established by the record before the existence of plain error may be recognized, id. at 283 , and the “‘plain error’ must [have been] of such a great magnitude that it probably changed the outcome of the trial.” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 642 . 2000In Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 282 (citing Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-642 ), our supreme court approved the consideration of the following five factors in determining whether trial error rises to the level of “plain error”: “(a) [T]he record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (b) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (c) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (d) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error is ‘necessary to do substantial justice.’” -7- The court emphasized that | 7 | 2000–2021 |
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.