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.
14 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2015 0 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. Whitegreen2 sentences2014See State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 , 580 n.20 (Tenn. 2012) (“Because we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the instructional error, we cannot find the error harmless.”). 2013In order to determine whether an instructional error is harmless, the appellate court must ask “whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Id. (quoting State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 190 (Tenn.2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also White, 362 S.W.3d at 580 n. 20 (“Because we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the instructional error, we cannot find the error harmless.”). | 6 | 13 |
State v. Howardgreen2 sentences2012See White, 362 S.W.3d at 580 n. 20 (citing State v. Howard, 30 S.W.3d 271, 277 (Tenn.2000)); see also State v. David Earl Scott, No. E2011-00707-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 5503951 , at *13-14 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2012See Howard, 30 S.W.3d at 277 n. 6. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Allengreen1 sentence2013In order to determine whether an instructional error is harmless, the appellate court must ask “whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Id. (quoting State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 190 (Tenn.2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also White, 362 S.W.3d at 580 n. 20 (“Because we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the instructional error, we cannot find the error harmless.”). | 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. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2013In order to determine whether an instructional error is harmless, the appellate court must ask “whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Id. (quoting State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 190 (Tenn.2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also White, 362 S.W.3d at 580 n. 20 (“Because we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the instructional error, we cannot find the error harmless.”). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.