repeated instruction in Tennessee

2006In support of his argument, the Appellant relies upon Spencer v. A-1 Crane Service, Inc., 880 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tenn. 1994), which states that “the only proper response by a trial judge to a question from the jury or an individual juror is to recall the jury, counsel, and parties into open court, hear the question, reinstruct the jury on the portion of the charge that responds to the question, if necessary, and make clear that the repeated instruction should not be considered as emphasis of that portion of the charge.” "[A] defendant has a constitutional right to a correct and complete charge o

2004Spencer v. A-1 Crane Service, Inc. 880 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tenn. 1994).

1996Berry v. Conover, 673 S.W.2d 541, 544-45 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984).

1996Berry v. Conover, 673 S.W.2d 541, 544-45 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

1996Repeating instructions is not necessarily erroneous, Cortazzo v. Blackburn, 912 S.W.2d at 745, as long as the repeated instruction is broad enough to cover the misunderstood issues completely without unduly emphasizing the particular portion of the charge.

1996Repeating instructions is not necessarily erroneous, Cortazzo v. Blackburn, 912 S.W.2d at 745 , as long as the repeated instruction is broad enough to cover the misunderstood issues completely without unduly emphasizing the particular portion of the charge.

2014App. Dec. 27, 2012), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. May 8, 2013). -24- See State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 614 (Tenn. 2003); Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660 .

2006In support of his argument, the Appellant relies upon Spencer v. A-1 Crane Service, Inc., 880 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tenn. 1994), which states that “the only proper response by a trial judge to a question from the jury or an individual juror is to recall the jury, counsel, and parties into open court, hear the question, reinstruct the jury on the portion of the charge that responds to the question, if necessary, and make clear that the repeated instruction should not be considered as emphasis of that portion of the charge.” "[A] defendant has a constitutional right to a correct and complete charge o

2006And in order for us to . . . put the plea through, we had to agree to the range and that's what [the petitioner] wanted to do." At the conclusion of the hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, specifically accrediting the testimony of trial counsel that he had "adequately explained to the [petitioner] the consequence of . . . pleading as a Range II offender." Although the post-conviction court failed to file a written order denying relief as required by statute, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-111 (b) (2003), it is our view that the record is otherwise adequate for our review, see State