19 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Manning v. Stategreen2 sentences2012The trial court must instruct the jury on the defense of alibi when it is “fairly raised” by the evidence, see Manning v. State, 500 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tenn. 1973), regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction. 2008The trial court must instruct the jury on the defense of alibi when it is “fairly raised” by the evidence, see Manning v. State, 500 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tenn. 1973), regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2006At the time of the Appellant’s trial, it was “the trial court’s duty to charge juries as to the law of each offenses included in an indictment . . . whether or not a defendant requests such an instruction.” State v. Wilson, 92 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tenn. 2002) (citing T.C.A. § 40-18-110(c) (1997)). 2005Nonetheless, at the time of Petitioner’s trial, it was “[t]he trial court’s duty to charge juries as to the law of each offense included in an indictment . . . whether or not a defendant requests such an instruction.” State v. Wilson, 92 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tenn. 2002) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18 - 110(c) (1997)). | 4 | 4 |
Poe v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Poe v. State, 370 S.W.2d 488, 491 (Tenn. 1963). 2008See Poe v. State, 370 S.W.2d 488, 491 (Tenn. 1963). | 3 | 3 |
Howard v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Historically, Tennessee has followed a “statutory elements” approach to defining lesser-included offenses. 3 See State v. Dominy, 6 S.W.Sd 472, 476 (Tenn.1999); Howard v. State, 578 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tenn.1979). 1999In defining a lesser-included offense, this Court described an offense as “necessarily included in another if the elements of the greater offense, as those elements are set forth in the indictment, include, but are not congruent with, all the elements of the lesser.” Howard v. State, 578 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tenn. 1979). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2003Id. at 464 . 2001This mandate applies “whether or not a defendant requests such an instruction.” State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tenn.1999); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-18-110(a) (1999) (providing that trial judges in felony prosecutions “wherein two or more grades or classes of offense may be included in the indictment” have a duty to charge the jury as to each offense “without any request on the part of the defendant to do so”). | 2 | 4 |
Bordenkircher v. Hayesgreen1 sentence2016It is the prosecutor, not the trial court, who “has the sole duty, authority, and discretion to prosecute criminal matters.” State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Spradlin, 12 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tenn. 2000)). “[T]he decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely within [the prosecutor‟s] discretion.” Id. (quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)); see also T.C.A. § 40-18- 110(e) (“When the defendant requests an instruction on a lesser included offense, the judge may condition the in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2016It is the prosecutor, not the trial court, who “has the sole duty, authority, and discretion to prosecute criminal matters.” State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Spradlin, 12 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tenn. 2000)). “[T]he decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely within [the prosecutor‟s] discretion.” Id. (quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)); see also T.C.A. § 40-18- 110(e) (“When the defendant requests an instruction on a lesser included offense, the judge may condition the in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Danny Spradlingreen2 sentences2016It is the prosecutor, not the trial court, who “has the sole duty, authority, and discretion to prosecute criminal matters.” State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Spradlin, 12 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tenn. 2000)). “[T]he decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely within [the prosecutor‟s] discretion.” Id. (quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)); see also T.C.A. § 40-18- 110(e) (“When the defendant requests an instruction on a lesser included offense, the judge may condition the in 2016It is the prosecutor, not the trial court, who “has the sole duty, authority, and discretion to prosecute criminal matters.” State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Spradlin, 12 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tenn. 2000)). “[T]he decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely within [the prosecutor‟s] discretion.” Id. (quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)); see also T.C.A. § 40-18- 110(e) (“When the defendant requests an instruction on a lesser included offense, the judge may condition the in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rushgreen1 sentence2004See State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tenn. 2001); but see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-110 (c) (Repl. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dylegreen1 sentence2001See id. at 612 (the court outlined four factors to be used by the jury in considering witness identification testimony). | 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. Thompson
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Page
green
1 sentence2006In State v. Page, 184 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tenn. 2006), our supreme court observed that: Under this prior version of section 40-18-110, a defendant was not required to request a lesser-included instruction to assign as error the trial court’s failure to give such instruction. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Langford
green
1 sentence2002Further, “[t]his mandate to charge lesser-included offenses applies whether or not a defendant requests such an instruction.” Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.