12 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ballingergreen2 sentences2015See State v. Ballinger, 93 S.W.3d 881, 888 (Tenn. Crim. 2013State v. Ballinger, 93 S.W.3d 881, 888 (Tenn. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Halquist v. Stategreen2 sentences2016App., Knoxville, April 23, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2014) (quoting Halquist v. State, 489 S.W.2d 88, 94 (Tenn. Crim. 2014This Court has held that informants working under the direction of and for the police are not accomplices during the time that they are acting with the police to ensure “the conviction and punishment of [their] confederates.” See -11- Halquist v. State, 489 S.W.2d 88, 94 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
cluster 662432green1 sentence2022Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1196 (1st Cir. 1993) We have identified two instances of deficiency in this case, trial counsel's failure to request an accomplice instruction and counsel's failure to object to the State's closing argument. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2015However, although “[t]he trial court has an obligation to properly instruct the jury,” State v. Robinson, 239 S.W.3d 211, 225, 228 (Tenn. 2006), a trial court’s failure to give an accomplice instruction is harmless error where there is sufficient corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Banegreen1 sentence2009See generally State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 419 (Tenn.2001) (Tennessee Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that a conviction may not be based solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice to the offense.”). | 1 | 1 |
Baxter v. Rosegreen1 sentence2004A. Standards For a petitioner to successfully overturn a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must first establish that the services rendered or the advice given was below “the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Perkinsongreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Perkinson, 867 S.W.2d at 7 (viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant in determining whether the trial court should have given an accomplice instruction). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Winfree v. State
green
2 sentences1969It has been held in Winfree v. State, 174 Tenn. 72 , 123 S.W.2d 827 , that slight circumstances may be sufficient to furnish the necessary corroboration of an accomplice. 1969It has been held in Winfree v. State, 174 Tenn. 72 , 123 S.W.2d 827 , that slight circumstances may be sufficient to furnish the necessary corroboration of an accomplice. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Hicks v. State
neutral
1 sentence1950The insistence of the State’s counsel is that because Lemser was acquitted by the jury, and thereby exonerated of any complicity in the crime, he is not to be considered as an accomplice and the rule requiring corroboration of his testimony has no application, citing Hicks v. State, 126 Tenn. 359, 363 , 149 S. W. 1055 , 1056. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
People v. Creegan
green
2 sentences1950But in this case the Court after stating the rule requiring corroboration said: “Where, however, the witness denies all criminal connection with the crime committed, whether he be an accomplice or not is a question of fact, to be submitted to the jury along with other issues of fact, under proper instructions from the court.” In People v. Creegan et al., 121 Cal. 554 , 53 P. 1082, 1084 ; the State’s witness had been tried and acquitted of the same crime for which the defendants were on trial. 1950But in this case the Court after stating the rule requiring corroboration said: “Where, however, the witness denies all criminal connection with the crime committed, whether he be an accomplice or not is a question of fact, to be submitted to the jury along with other issues of fact, under proper instructions from the court.” In People v. Creegan et al., 121 Cal. 554 , 53 P. 1082, 1084 ; the State’s witness had been tried and acquitted of the same crime for which the defendants were on trial. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.