criminal responsibility doctrine (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

criminal responsibility doctrine in Tennessee

10 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2024 2 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Carsongreen
tenn · 1997 · cited in 6 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2009–2024
2 sentences

2015In the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, the legislature codified the common law doctrine of criminal responsibility, and “the legislature clearly intended that the natural and probable consequences doctrine survive codification.” Id. at 656 (citing Carson, 950 S.W.2d at 955 ).

2014In the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, the legislature codified the common law doctrine of criminal responsibility, and “the legislature clearly intended that the natural and probable consequences doctrine survive codification.” Id. at 656 (citing Carson, 950 S.W.2d at 955 ).

36
State v. Howardgreen
tenn · 2000 · cited in 4 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2009–2024
2 sentences

2024State v. Howard, 30 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tenn. 2000) (citing State v. Carson, 950 S.W.2d 951, 954-55 (Tenn. 1997)).

2023State v. Howard, 30 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tenn. 2000) (citing State v. Carson, 950 S.W.2d 951, 954-55 (Tenn. 1997)).

24
State v. Lemacksgreen
tenn · 1999 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019Criminal responsibility is not a separate crime but “is solely a theory by which the State may prove the defendant’s guilt of the alleged offense . . . based upon the conduct of another person.” State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tenn. 1999).

11
State v. Lynngreen
tenn · 1996 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012“Rule 30(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that failure to make objection to the content of an instruction ‘shall not prejudice the right of a party to assign the basis of the objection as error in support of a motion for a new trial.’” State v. Lynn, 924 S.W.2d 892, 898-99 (Tenn. 1996). -11- The trial court instructed the jury regarding criminal responsibility as follows: The defendant is criminally responsible as a party to the offense or offenses . . . if the offenses were committed by the defendant’s own conduct, by the conduct of another for which the defendant is c

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State of Tennessee v. Linnell Richmond green
tenn · 2002
2 sentences

2015In the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, the legislature codified the common law doctrine of criminal responsibility, and “the legislature clearly intended that the natural and probable consequences doctrine survive codification.” Id. at 656 (citing Carson, 950 S.W.2d at 955 ).

2009In the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, the legislature codified the common law doctrine of criminal responsibility, and “the legislature clearly intended that the natural and probable consequences doctrine survive codification.” Id. at 656 (citing Carson, 950 S.W.2d at 955 ).

32009–2015
Bruton v. United States green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

2013In this appeal as of right, the Defendants raise the following issues: (1) both Defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding by the jury of premeditation; (2) Defendant Cochran argues that issuance of a criminal responsibility instruction was in error; (3) Defendant Cochran contends that admission of his co-defendant’s statements against him violated Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968); and (4) both Defendants contend that the trial court erred by submitting enhancement factors to the jury and by allowing the prosecutor to charge those factors, and that the

2013ANALYSIS On appeal, the Defendants raise the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of premeditation; (2) whether the issuance of a criminal responsibility instruction in Defendant Cochran’s case was in error; (3) whether admission of Defendant Price’s statements against Defendant Cochran violated his confrontation rights pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968); and (4) whether the trial court erred by submitting enhancement factors to the jury, charged by the prosecutor, and whether their respective sentences were excessive.3 W

12013–2013
State v. Adkisson green
tenncrimapp · 1994
1 sentence

2012Because any error in the omission of a criminal responsibility instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not adversely affect any substantial right of the defendant and consideration of the issue is not “‘necessary to do substantial justice.’” Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 282 (quoting Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 ).

12012–2012
State v. Smith green
tenn · 2000
1 sentence

2012Because any error in the omission of a criminal responsibility instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not adversely affect any substantial right of the defendant and consideration of the issue is not “‘necessary to do substantial justice.’” Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 282 (quoting Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 ).

12012–2012
State v. Williamson green
tenncrimapp · 1995
1 sentence

2010The state responds that the criminal responsibility instruction fully covered the issue of specific intent, given the fact that the instruction required the jury to find that the defendant acted with intent and intent is synonymous with “intention” and “intentional.” See Williamson, 919 S.W.2d at 76 .

12010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402 (9) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-401 (5) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 10 (2009–2024) MD 4 (1964–2014) MA 4 (1992–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check