12 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Black v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn. Crim. 2013See Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Jackson v. Virginiared1 sentence2019“Appellate courts evaluating the sufficiency of the convicting evidence must determine ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); see Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Evansgreen1 sentence2019She insists that she is not the individual responsible for the crimes and that “there were inconsistencies between the State’s witnesses and the defense witnesses that took the stand.” The State argues, and we agree, that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions. - 19 - “Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt, the criminal defendant bears the burden on appeal of showing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.” State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009) (citing State v. Ev | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Carl J. Wagnergreen1 sentence2019“Appellate courts evaluating the sufficiency of the convicting evidence must determine ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); see Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hansongreen1 sentence2019She insists that she is not the individual responsible for the crimes and that “there were inconsistencies between the State’s witnesses and the defense witnesses that took the stand.” The State argues, and we agree, that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions. - 19 - “Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt, the criminal defendant bears the burden on appeal of showing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.” State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009) (citing State v. Ev | 1 | 1 |
Texas v. McCulloughgreen2 sentences1997McCullough, 475 U.S. at 143, 106 S.Ct. at 981 . 1997McCullough, 475 U.S. at 143, 106 S.Ct. at 981 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2014Denial of Motion for Production of Statements of Those Not Called as Witnesses The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for production of statements of those not called as witnesses by the State and that the State was required to disclose those statements pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the 2014Denial of Motion for Production of Statements of Those Not Called as Witnesses The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for production of statements of those not called as witnesses by the State and that the State was required to disclose those statements pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the | 4 | 2007–2014 |
Massengale v. Massengale
green
1 sentence1997As in Massengale, “we cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact supporting its conclusion that there had not been a sufficient change in circumstances to justify a change in custody.” Massengale, 915 S.W.2d at 820 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Womack
green
1 sentence1981State v. Womack, 591 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn.App.1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence1975The defendant further cites Thompson v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 72 , 118 P.2d 269 (1941), where the defendant asked all witnesses to be placed under the rule and the court placed all of the witnesses under the rule except two highway patrolmen and a police officer. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Thompson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1975The defendant further cites Thompson v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 72 , 118 P.2d 269 (1941), where the defendant asked all witnesses to be placed under the rule and the court placed all of the witnesses under the rule except two highway patrolmen and a police officer. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.