contemporaneous instruction in Tennessee

2001Gaston v. State, 506 S.W.2d 802 (Tenn. Crim.

1976The State maintains that the trial court’s ruling sustaining the defendant’s objection to the improper remark and the contemporaneous instruction to the jury cure any prejudice to the defendant and make any error harmless as a matter of law, citing Gaston v. State, 506 S.W.2d 802 (Tenn.Cr.App.1973), French v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 57 (1972), Cantrell v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 434, 463 S.W.2d 145 (1970), and Dishman v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 725, 460 S.W.2d 855 (1970).

2000Martin v. State, 584 S.W.2d 830, 833 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). 637 S.W.2d at 861 .

1999Our supreme court has directed that, when prior statements are only to be considered on the issue of credibility, “the trial judge should give a contemporaneous instruction to this effect when the impeaching statements are offered.” See Reece, 637 S.W.2d at 861 ; see also Comments, T.P.I.--Crim. 42.06 (4th ed. 1995).

2021The court concluded that “despite the expert’s acknowledgment that a recantation can take place because the original allegation of abuse was false and despite the trial court’s contemporaneous instruction to the jury that the evidence was only ‘to inform the jury of this [recantation] phenomenon,’ we must find that the overall prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value of the testimony.” Id. (alternation in original).

2021It noted that “if the [expert] testimony were not introduced by the state as a means of bolstering the child victim’s testimony, it would have had no probative value at all.” Id. (citing D.

2013Due to this procedural circumstance, the juvenile court’s custody determination is appealable directly to the circuit court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-159(a) as mandated by In re D.Y.H., 226 S.W.3d at 331 .

2003In support of his argument that the Defendant’s confession should have been excluded at trial because of the police officers’ failure to re-administer Miranda warnings to the Defendant on the morning of February 12, the Defendant relies upon the statement by our supreme court that “a contemporaneous warning is thus absolutely necessary to the subsequent admissibility of a statement . . . .” State v. Crump, 834 S.W.2d 265 , 270 n.3 (Tenn. 1992).

1992While a contemporaneous warning is thus absolutely necessary to the subsequent admissibility of a statement, we in no way intimate that police are free to ignore a suspect’s invocation of his right to silence so long as they re-administer Miranda warnings where this tactic rises to the level of "repeated efforts to wear down his resistance and make him change his mind.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 105-06 , 96 S.Ct. at 327 , 46 L.Ed.2d at 322 .

1992While a contemporaneous warning is thus absolutely necessary to the subsequent admissibility of a statement, we in no way intimate that police are free to ignore a suspect’s invocation of his right to silence so long as they re-administer Miranda warnings where this tactic rises to the level of "repeated efforts to wear down his resistance and make him change his mind.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 105-06 , 96 S.Ct. at 327 , 46 L.Ed.2d at 322 .

1976The State maintains that the trial court’s ruling sustaining the defendant’s objection to the improper remark and the contemporaneous instruction to the jury cure any prejudice to the defendant and make any error harmless as a matter of law, citing Gaston v. State, 506 S.W.2d 802 (Tenn.Cr.App.1973), French v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 57 (1972), Cantrell v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 434, 463 S.W.2d 145 (1970), and Dishman v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 725, 460 S.W.2d 855 (1970).

1976The State maintains that the trial court’s ruling sustaining the defendant’s objection to the improper remark and the contemporaneous instruction to the jury cure any prejudice to the defendant and make any error harmless as a matter of law, citing Gaston v. State, 506 S.W.2d 802 (Tenn.Cr.App.1973), French v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 57 (1972), Cantrell v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 434, 463 S.W.2d 145 (1970), and Dishman v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 725, 460 S.W.2d 855 (1970).