curative admissibility doctrine in Tennessee

2018In addition, the doctrine of curative admissibility “permits the State, on redirect, to question the witness to clarify or explain the matters brought out during, or to remove or correct unfavorable inferences left by, the previous cross-examination.” State v. Land, 34 S.W.3d 516, 531 (Tenn. Crim.

2016In addition, the doctrine of curative admissibility “permits the State, on redirect, to question the witness to clarify or explain the matters brought out during, or to remove or correct unfavorable inferences left by, the previous cross-examination.” State v. Land, 34 S.W.3d 516, 531 (Tenn. Crim.

2018App. 2000) (citing People v. Manning, 695 N.E.2d 423, 433 (Ill. 1998)).

2016App. 2000) (citing People v. Manning, 695 N.E.2d 423, 433 (Ill. 1998)).

2018App. 2000) (“Although Tennessee has not expressly adopted the doctrine of curative admissibility, previous decisions of this court reflect an implicit adoption of the same.”) (citing State v. Chearis, 995 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tenn. Crim.

2000App. at Nashville, April 28, 2000), this court expressly acknowledged our prior implicit adoption of the “doctrine of curative admissibility.” See also State v. Chearis, 995 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tenn. Crim.

2018App. 1999) (officer permitted to testify on redirect examination to previously excluded evidence because defense “opened the door” by eliciting on cross-examination the basis for the search of the defendant); Harrison v. State, 527 S.W.2d 745, 748 (Tenn. Crim.

2000See, e.g., State v. Chearis, 995 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tenn.Crim.App.1999) (officer permitted to testify on redirect examination to previously excluded evidence because defense “opened the door” by eliciting on cross-examination the basis for the search of the defendant); Harrison v. State, 527 S.W.2d 745, 748 (Tenn.Crim.App.), cert. denied, (Tenn.1975) (defense called Chancery Court Clerk to testify regarding certain divorce matters between defendant and deceased, defense counsel did not introduce petition as exhibit, State permitted to cross-examine clerk on specific allegations in bill, since de

2018The Land court further observed that “[s]pecifically, in a criminal case, ‘[t]he rule operates to prevent an accused from successfully gaining exclusion of inadmissible prosecution evidence and then extracting selected pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without the Government being able to place them in their proper context.’” 34 S.W.3d at 531 (quoting Lampkins v. United States, 515 A.2d 428, 431 (D.C. 1986)).

2006The Land court further observed that “[s]pecifically, in a criminal case, ‘[t]he rule operates to prevent an accused from successfully gaining exclusion of inadmissible prosecution evidence and then extracting selected pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without the Government being able to place them in their proper context.’” Id. at 531 (quoting Lampkins v. United States, 515 A.2d 428, 431 (D.C. 1986)).

2010Regarding the breadth of the curative admissibility doctrine, this Court explained in Land that its applicability is limited by, “the necessity of removing prejudice in the interest of fairness.” Crawford v. United States, 198 F.2d 976, 979 (1952) (D.C.