13 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2024 3 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. Hallgreen2 sentences2024A diminished capacity claim involves “a defendant’s presentation of expert, psychiatric evidence aimed at negating the requisite culpable mental state.” State v. Hall, - 19 - 958 S.W.2d 679, 688 (Tenn. 1997). 2014The standard of admissibility of diminished capacity type evidence was succinctly coined in State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679, 689 (1997): To gain admissibility, expert testimony regarding a defendant’s incapacity to form the required mental state must satisfy the general relevancy standards as well as the evidentiary rules which specifically govern expert testimony. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Phippsgreen2 sentences2018The Defendant relies on Dr. Young’s testimony at the suppression hearing as establishing his intellectual impairment and cites to Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138 , as supporting his argument that he was entitled to a diminished capacity instruction. 1998He argues that the diminished capacity instruction as given by the trial court does not accurately reflect the law as set forth in State v. Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 3 |
Black v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Black v. State, 794 S.W. 2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Henry Zillon Felts v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2020Trial counsel is never required to “pursue inconsistent defense theories [in order] to provide constitutionally effective representation.” Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266, 280 (Tenn. 2011) (determining trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue self-defense and voluntary manslaughter defenses). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cozartgreen1 sentence2018Special instructions are given “to supply an omission or correct a mistake made in the general charge, to present a material question not treated in the general charge, or to limit, extend, eliminate, or more accurately define a proposition already submitted to the jury.” State v. Cozart, 54 S.W.3d 242, 245 (Tenn. 2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2013See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 . | 1 | 1 |
Fayne v. Vincentgreen2 sentences2010See T.C.A. § 40-30-106(g); see also Fayne v. Vincent, 301 S.W.3d 162, 171 (Tenn. 2009) (“The jurisprudential restriction against permitting parties to raise issues on appeal that were not first raised in the trial court is premised on the doctrine of waiver.”). 2010See T.C.A. § 40-30-106(g); see also Fayne v. Vincent, 301 S.W.3d 162, 171 (Tenn. 2009) (“The jurisprudential restriction against permitting parties to raise issues on appeal that were not first raised in the trial court is premised on the doctrine of waiver.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schallergreen1 sentence2006App. R. 10(b); see also State v. Schaller, 975 S.W.2d 313, 318 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence1993See State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387, 397 (Tenn.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chatman v. Walker
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. White
green
1 sentence2018Special instructions are given “to supply an omission or correct a mistake made in the general charge, to present a material question not treated in the general charge, or to limit, extend, eliminate, or more accurately define a proposition already submitted to the jury.” State v. Cozart, 54 S.W.3d 242, 245 (Tenn. 2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn.2012). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1994In State v. Taylor, 645 S.W.2d 759 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982), this court cited only Croscup in refusing a diminished capacity instruction in an aggravated sexual battery and armed robbery case, stating again that diminished capacity was not recognized as a defense in Tennessee. 645 S.W.2d at 763 . 1994In State v. Taylor, 645 S.W.2d 759 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982), this court cited only Croscup in refusing a diminished capacity instruction in an aggravated sexual battery and armed robbery case, stating again that diminished capacity was not recognized as a defense in Tennessee. 645 S.W.2d at 763 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Shelton
green
2 sentences1994In reference to the Tennessee Supreme Court's holding in the later Taylor decision, we stated: "[w]e view the Supreme Court's statements in Taylor as less than a ringing endorsement *147 of this Court's blanket rejection of the diminished capacity defense and we view Davis [v. State ] as having continued vitality." Id. [16] Davis v. State , a 1930 decision, is the first in a line of Tennessee cases that provide a basis for concluding that evidence to negate the element of intent is admissible in Tennessee. 1994In reference to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in the later Taylor decision, we stated: “[w]e view the Supreme Court’s statements in Taylor as less than a ringing en dorsement of this Court’s blanket rejection of the diminished capacity defense and we view Davis [v. State] as having continued vitality.” Id. 16 Davis v. State, a 1930 decision, is the first in a line of Tennessee cases that provide a basis for concluding that evidence to negate the element of intent is admissible in Tennessee. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.