12 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2026 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. Estesgreen2 sentences2026In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, any error [is] waived” (quoting State v. Estes, 655 S.W.2d 179, 186 (Tenn. Crim. 2024In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, any error was waived.” State v. Walls, 537 S.W.3d 892, 899 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting State v. Estes, 655 S.W.2d 179, 186 (Tenn. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Mouncegreen2 sentences2010Indeed, “a defendant who stands silent at a time when he could have objected to the action taken by the trial court may often be considered to have acquiesced in that particular course of action,” Skelton, 77 S.W.3d at 799 (citing Mounce, 859 S.W.2d at 322-23 ), and, “when a defendant chooses not to object to the mistrial and give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error, consent may be inferred and, therefore, double jeopardy will not bar a subsequent prosecution,” Mounce, 859 S.W.2d at 323 . 2010Indeed, “a defendant who stands silent at a time when he could have objected to the action taken by the trial court may often be considered to have acquiesced in that particular course of action,” Skelton, 77 S.W.3d at 799 (citing Mounce, 859 S.W.2d at 322-23 ), and, “when a defendant chooses not to object to the mistrial and give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error, consent may be inferred and, therefore, double jeopardy will not bar a subsequent prosecution,” Mounce, 859 S.W.2d at 323 . | 2 | 5 |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Jo Wallsgreen2 sentences2026App. P. 36 (“Nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring relief be granted to a party responsible for an error or who failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error.”); State v. Walls, 537 S.W.3d 892, 899 (Tenn. 2017) (stating that “[o]bjections to improper procedure must be voiced contemporaneously to give the trial judge the opportunity to correct the error on the spot. 2024In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, any error was waived.” State v. Walls, 537 S.W.3d 892, 899 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting State v. Estes, 655 S.W.2d 179, 186 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph E. Skeltongreen2 sentences2013However, before consent can be inferred from the defendant’s silence, the “defendant must have a realistic opportunity to object, prior to a trial court’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial.” Houston, 328 S.W.3d at 881 (quoting State v. Skelton, 77 S.W.3d 791, 800 (Tenn.Crim.App.2001)). 2010Indeed, “a defendant who stands silent at a time when he could have objected to the action taken by the trial court may often be considered to have acquiesced in that particular course of action,” Skelton, 77 S.W.3d at 799 (citing Mounce, 859 S.W.2d at 322-23 ), and, “when a defendant chooses not to object to the mistrial and give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error, consent may be inferred and, therefore, double jeopardy will not bar a subsequent prosecution,” Mounce, 859 S.W.2d at 323 . | 1 | 2 |
Holmes v. Easongreen1 sentence2024In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, any error was waived.”)); see also Collier, 1992 WL 44893 , at *3 (“Litigants cannot refrain from asserting known grounds for disqualification in order ‘to experiment with the court . . . and raise the objection later when the result of the trial proved to be unfavorable.’” (first quoting Holmes v. Eason, 76 Tenn. 754, 757 (1882); and then citing Gotwald v. Gotwald, 768 S.W.2d 689, 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988))); Allen v. State, 257 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ga. 1979) (holding that an objection to the appointment of a special prosecutor was made too late when it | 1 | 1 |
Gotwald v. Gotwaldgreen1 sentence2024In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, any error was waived.”)); see also Collier, 1992 WL 44893 , at *3 (“Litigants cannot refrain from asserting known grounds for disqualification in order ‘to experiment with the court . . . and raise the objection later when the result of the trial proved to be unfavorable.’” (first quoting Holmes v. Eason, 76 Tenn. 754, 757 (1882); and then citing Gotwald v. Gotwald, 768 S.W.2d 689, 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988))); Allen v. State, 257 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ga. 1979) (holding that an objection to the appointment of a special prosecutor was made too late when it | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Stategreen1 sentence2024In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, any error was waived.”)); see also Collier, 1992 WL 44893 , at *3 (“Litigants cannot refrain from asserting known grounds for disqualification in order ‘to experiment with the court . . . and raise the objection later when the result of the trial proved to be unfavorable.’” (first quoting Holmes v. Eason, 76 Tenn. 754, 757 (1882); and then citing Gotwald v. Gotwald, 768 S.W.2d 689, 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988))); Allen v. State, 257 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ga. 1979) (holding that an objection to the appointment of a special prosecutor was made too late when it | 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. McGhee
green
2 sentences2020In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, any error was waived.” Id. (citing State v. Estes, 655 S.W.2d 179, 186 (Tenn. Crim. 2019In the absence of a contemporaneous -23- objection, any error was waived.” Id. (citing State v. Estes, 655 S.W.2d 179, 186 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2019–2020 |
State v. Houston
green
1 sentence2013However, before consent can be inferred from the defendant’s silence, the “defendant must have a realistic opportunity to object, prior to a trial court’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial.” Houston, 328 S.W.3d at 881 (quoting State v. Skelton, 77 S.W.3d 791, 800 (Tenn.Crim.App.2001)). | 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.