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.
11 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 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. Teelred2 sentences2014An accused’s constitutional right to trial by jury, see U.S. Const. amend VI; Tenn. Const. art. 1, § 6, encompasses a right to a correct and complete charge of the law, see State v. Teel, 793 S.W.2d 236, 249 (Tenn. 1990). 2008The trial court has a duty “to give a complete charge of the law applicable to the facts of a case.” State v. Harbison, 704 S.W.2d 314 , 319 (Tenn. 1986); accord State v. Forbes, 793 S.W.2d 236, 249 (Tenn. 1990); see also Tenn. R.Crim. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hatchergreen1 sentence2024A trial court’s jury charge “should not contain inaccurate or inapplicable statements of legal principles that might tend to confuse the jury.” State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788, 812 (Tenn. 2010) (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Momon v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Automatic reversal is a remedy reserved for structural constitutional errors, such as “the complete denial of the right to counsel, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of the right of self-representation at trial, and denial of the right to a trial by jury.” Id. (citing Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152, 165-66 (Tenn. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2020The State asserts that the error was harmless. “[T]his Court has recognized three categories of error – structural constitutional error, non-structural constitutional error, and non-constitutional error.” State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008). 2020Automatic reversal is a remedy reserved for structural constitutional errors, such as “the complete denial of the right to counsel, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of the right of self-representation at trial, and denial of the right to a trial by jury.” Id. (citing Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152, 165-66 (Tenn. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garrisongreen1 sentence2019A criminal defendant has “a right to a correct and complete charge of the law.” Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 280 (citing State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nixgreen1 sentence2015Accordingly, we 1 In its brief, the State asserts that the standard of mental incompetence with respect to the post-conviction statute of limitations is that announced in State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459, 463 (Tenn. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Gant v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Grant v. State, 507 S.W.2d 133, 137 (Tenn. Crim. | 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. Nesbit
green
2 sentences2002The state counters that the trial court properly followed the dictates of State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn.1998), in permitting Tyus' impeachment, and while conceding that the trial court erred by failing to give a limiting instruction, the state asserts that the error was harmless. 2002The state counters that the trial court properly followed the dictates of State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn.1998), in permitting Tyus’ impeachment, and while conceding that the trial court erred by failing to give a limiting instruction, the state asserts that the error was harmless. | 3 | 2001–2002 |
State v. Hanson
green
1 sentence2019A criminal defendant has “a right to a correct and complete charge of the law.” Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 280 (citing State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.