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.
12 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2016 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. Blackgreen2 sentences2016Our supreme court, adopting the Dusky factors, held that “[t]he standard for determining competency to stand trial is whether the accused has „the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel and to assist in preparing his defense.‟” State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Mackey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Crim. 2016Our supreme court, adopting the Dusky factors, held that “[t]he standard for determining competency to stand trial is whether the accused has „the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel and to assist in preparing his defense.‟” State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Mackey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Crim. | 6 | 6 |
MacKey v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Our supreme court, adopting the Dusky factors, held that “[t]he standard for determining competency to stand trial is whether the accused has „the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel and to assist in preparing his defense.‟” State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Mackey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Crim. 2016Our supreme court, adopting the Dusky factors, held that “[t]he standard for determining competency to stand trial is whether the accused has „the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel and to assist in preparing his defense.‟” State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Mackey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Crim. | 4 | 6 |
State v. Bentongreen2 sentences2010State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Benton, 759 S.W.2d at 429 ; Mackey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Crim. 2010State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Benton, 759 S.W.2d at 429 ; Mackey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
Dusky v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009Specifically, the trial judge asked defense counsel about Defendant's "ability to communicate with you, to discuss the case with you as far as preparation for the guilt or innocence phase of the trial?” Defendant asserts that the trial judge's focus "should have been on Defendant’s ability to rationally understand and assist in his defense, particularly with respect to the sentencing phase of the trial.” We acknowledge that the Dusky test of competency is whether Defendant had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether 2009Specifically, the trial judge asked defense counsel about Defendant's "ability to communicate with you, to discuss the case with you as far as preparation for the guilt or innocence phase of the trial?” Defendant asserts that the trial judge's focus "should have been on Defendant’s ability to rationally understand and assist in his defense, particularly with respect to the sentencing phase of the trial.” We acknowledge that the Dusky test of competency is whether Defendant had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether | 1 | 5 |
State v. Harrisongreen2 sentences2016App. 1975)); see also Harrison, 270 S.W.3d at 33 . 2016App. 1975)); see also Harrison, 270 S.W.3d at 33 . | 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. Leming
green
2 sentences2016Id. (citing Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 ). 2016Id. (citing Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.