10 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2022 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. Brooksgreen2 sentences2022Before a hearsay statement is entered under this exception, the trial court must conduct a jury-out hearing and determine that “a preponderance of the evidence establishes: 1) that the defendant was involved in or responsible for procuring the unavailability of the declarant; and 2) that [the] defendant’s actions were intended, at least in part to procure the absence of the declarant.” Ivy, 188 S.W.3d at 147 ; see also State v. Brooks, 249 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tenn. 2008) (stating that, for the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to apply, the State must show the defendant’s actions “were intended, 2017Before admitting a hearsay statement under this exception, the trial court must conduct a jury-out hearing and determine that ―a preponderance of the evidence establishes: 1) that the defendant was involved in or responsible for procuring the unavailability of the declarant; and 2) that [the] defendant‘s actions were intended, at least in part, to procure the absence of the declarant.‖ State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132, 147 (Tenn. 2006); see also State v. Brooks, 249 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tenn. 2008) (stating that, for the exception to apply, the State must show that the defendant‘s actions ―were intend | 2 | 3 |
State v. Ivygreen2 sentences2022Before a hearsay statement is entered under this exception, the trial court must conduct a jury-out hearing and determine that “a preponderance of the evidence establishes: 1) that the defendant was involved in or responsible for procuring the unavailability of the declarant; and 2) that [the] defendant’s actions were intended, at least in part to procure the absence of the declarant.” Ivy, 188 S.W.3d at 147 ; see also State v. Brooks, 249 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tenn. 2008) (stating that, for the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to apply, the State must show the defendant’s actions “were intended, 2017Before admitting a hearsay statement under this exception, the trial court must conduct a jury-out hearing and determine that ―a preponderance of the evidence establishes: 1) that the defendant was involved in or responsible for procuring the unavailability of the declarant; and 2) that [the] defendant‘s actions were intended, at least in part, to procure the absence of the declarant.‖ State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132, 147 (Tenn. 2006); see also State v. Brooks, 249 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tenn. 2008) (stating that, for the exception to apply, the State must show that the defendant‘s actions ―were intend | 1 | 6 |
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2009The forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to an accused’s confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution likewise requires a showing that the defendant “engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” Giles v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 2678, 2683 (2008) (emphasis in original). 2009The Court further explained the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the right of confrontation in Giles v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 2678, 2683 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2009The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In addition, article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution provides -7- that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to . . . meet the witnesses face to face.” “Although the language of the federal and state constitutional provisions is somewhat different, in determining the rights of an accused under article I, section 9, [Tennessee courts] have traditionally adopted and applied the standards enunci | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Kacy Dewayne Cannongreen1 sentence2009The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In addition, article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution provides -7- that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to . . . meet the witnesses face to face.” “Although the language of the federal and state constitutional provisions is somewhat different, in determining the rights of an accused under article I, section 9, [Tennessee courts] have traditionally adopted and applied the standards enunci | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2006As this court has stated, “[t]he right of confrontation is not absolute and must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and necessities of the case.” State v. Kennedy, 7 S.W.3d 58, 65 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mayhewgreen1 sentence2006People v. Bauder, 712 N.W.2d 506 , 514-15 (Mich. App. 2005); see United States v. Mayhew, 380 F. Supp. 2d 961, 966-97 (S.D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edward Thomas Kendrick, III v. State of Tennessee
green
1 sentence2015Recently, in Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015), the supreme court explained the standard of review to be utilized when addressing the admissibility of hearsay evidence: The standard of review for rulings on hearsay evidence has multiple layers. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2009The court explained that “[t]he rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing (which we accept) extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S. Ct. at 1370 . 2009The court explained that “[t]he rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing (which we accept) extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S. Ct. at 1370 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Reynolds v. United States
green
1 sentence2006The United States Supreme Court first used the forfeiture doctrine in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Severo Garcia-Meza
green
1 sentence2006The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals made this distinction in United States v. Garcia-Meza, 403 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Emery
neutral
1 sentence2006People v. Bauder, 712 N.W.2d 506 , 514-15 (Mich. App. 2005); see United States v. Mayhew, 380 F. Supp. 2d 961, 966-97 (S.D. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Miller
green
1 sentence2004In essence, the Appellant argues that the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception is to be generally limited to the introduction of hearsay statements in the proceeding at which the deceased was expected by the accused to testify. 3 Rule 804(b)(6), Tennessee Rules of Evidence, provides: “A statement offered against a party that has engaged in wrongdoing that was intended to and did procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.” -14- Prior to admitting hearsay statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing outside the presence | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Booth v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2004In essence, the Appellant argues that the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception is to be generally limited to the introduction of hearsay statements in the proceeding at which the deceased was expected by the accused to testify. 3 Rule 804(b)(6), Tennessee Rules of Evidence, provides: “A statement offered against a party that has engaged in wrongdoing that was intended to and did procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.” -14- Prior to admitting hearsay statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing outside the presence | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Kucera v. United Nebraska Bank
green
1 sentence2004In essence, the Appellant argues that the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception is to be generally limited to the introduction of hearsay statements in the proceeding at which the deceased was expected by the accused to testify. 3 Rule 804(b)(6), Tennessee Rules of Evidence, provides: “A statement offered against a party that has engaged in wrongdoing that was intended to and did procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.” -14- Prior to admitting hearsay statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing outside the presence | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.