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.
16 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024To address a multiple description claim, we must apply the two-pronged test laid out in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). 2022To address a multiple description claim, we must apply the two-pronged test articulated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). | 9 | 11 |
State of Tennessee v. Glover P. Smithgreen2 sentences2024See Smith, 436 S.W.3d at 767 ; Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 556 . 2018See Smith, 436 S.W.3d at 766-68 (applying the multiple description test to determine whether convictions under multiple subsections of the same statute - 13 - violated double jeopardy). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2019In Watkins, our - 24 - supreme court adopted a two-step process derived from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), in order to determine whether a multiple description claim violates the principles of due process. 362 S.W.3d at 545 . 2018A multiple description claim is one in which a defendant convicted of multiple criminal offenses under different statutes alleges that the convictions result in double jeopardy *168 because the statutes punish the "same offense." Id. (citing Watkins , 362 S.W.3d at 544 ). | 1 | 11 |
State v. Schoonovergreen1 sentence2012Multiple description claims arise in cases in which defendants who have been convicted of multiple criminal offenses under different statutes allege that the convictions violate double jeopardy because the statutes punish the “same offense.” See, e.g., Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 336-39 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (holding that Congress intended to permit dual convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to distribute marijuana even though such violations arose from a single agreement or conspiracy having dual objectives); Gore, 357 U.S. at 390-91 , 78 S.Ct. 1280 (holding that the defendant’s t | 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. Denton
red
1 sentence2016In Watkins, the Tennessee Supreme Court abandoned the State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996), four-factor test previously employed by Tennessee courts in determining whether dual convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Morgan v. Devine
green
2 sentences2012Multiple description claims arise in cases in which defendants who have been convicted of multiple criminal offenses under different statutes allege that the convictions violate double jeopardy because the statutes punish the “same offense.” See, e.g., Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 336-39 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (holding that Congress intended to permit dual convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to distribute marijuana even though such violations arose from a single agreement or conspiracy having dual objectives); Gore, 357 U.S. at 390-91 , 78 S.Ct. 1280 (holding that the defendant’s t 2012Multiple description claims arise in cases in which defendants who have been convicted of multiple criminal offenses under different statutes allege that the convictions violate double jeopardy because the statutes punish the “same offense.” See, e.g., Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 336-39 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (holding that Congress intended to permit dual convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to distribute marijuana even though such violations arose from a single agreement or conspiracy having dual objectives); Gore, 357 U.S. at 390-91 , 78 S.Ct. 1280 (holding that the defendant’s t | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Gore v. United States
green
2 sentences2012Multiple description claims arise in cases in which defendants who have been convicted of multiple criminal offenses under different statutes allege that the convictions violate double jeopardy because the statutes punish the “same offense.” See, e.g., Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 336-39 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (holding that Congress intended to permit dual convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to distribute marijuana even though such violations arose from a single agreement or conspiracy having dual objectives); Gore, 357 U.S. at 390-91 , 78 S.Ct. 1280 (holding that the defendant’s t 2012Multiple description claims arise in cases in which defendants who have been convicted of multiple criminal offenses under different statutes allege that the convictions violate double jeopardy because the statutes punish the “same offense.” See, e.g., Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 336-39 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (holding that Congress intended to permit dual convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to distribute marijuana even though such violations arose from a single agreement or conspiracy having dual objectives); Gore, 357 U.S. at 390-91 , 78 S.Ct. 1280 (holding that the defendant’s t | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Goins
green
1 sentence2012For example, in Goins , even though the defendant received and concealed stolen goods from a burglar who had victimized at least three persons, the Court concluded that the statute did not authorize multiple convictions for the receipt and concealment of the stolen goods. 705 S.W.2d at 650-51 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Albernaz v. United States
green
2 sentences2012Multiple description claims arise in cases in which defendants who have been convicted of multiple criminal offenses under different statutes allege that the convictions violate double jeopardy because the statutes punish the “same offense.” See, e.g., Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 336-39 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (holding that Congress intended to permit dual convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to distribute marijuana even though such violations arose from a single agreement or conspiracy having dual objectives); Gore, 357 U.S. at 390-91 , 78 S.Ct. 1280 (holding that the defendant’s t 2012Multiple description claims arise in cases in which defendants who have been convicted of multiple criminal offenses under different statutes allege that the convictions violate double jeopardy because the statutes punish the “same offense.” See, e.g., Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 336-39 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (holding that Congress intended to permit dual convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to distribute marijuana even though such violations arose from a single agreement or conspiracy having dual objectives); Gore, 357 U.S. at 390-91 , 78 S.Ct. 1280 (holding that the defendant’s t | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.