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.
9 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Byrdgreen2 sentences2019“While a bill of particulars certainly will not save an otherwise invalid indictment, it can serve to narrow a general indictment and provide a defendant with enough information about the charge to allow the defendant to prepare a defense and avoid prejudicial surprise at trial.” Hammonds, 30 S.W.3d at 303 (citing State v. Byrd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tenn. 1991)). 2017See State v. Byrd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 740-41 (Tenn. 1991) (noting in a case of child sexual abuse that the bill of particulars need not include specific dates but should be specific enough to allow the defendant to prepare a defense, prevent undue prejudicial surprise, or provide inadequate protection against double jeopardy); see also State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395, 408-09 (Tenn. 2008) (the bill of particulars functions (1) to provide details of the offense to assist in preparation for trial; (2) to prevent prejudicial surprise at trial; and (3) to enable the defendant to preserve a plea for d | 4 | 5 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2004Byrd, 820 S.W.2d at 741 (citing State v. Hicks, 666 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tenn. 1984)); State v. Shropshire, 45 S.W.3d 64, 71 (Tenn. Crim. 1985See State v. Hicks, 666 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn.1984). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Shermangreen1 sentence2017See State v. Byrd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 740-41 (Tenn. 1991) (noting in a case of child sexual abuse that the bill of particulars need not include specific dates but should be specific enough to allow the defendant to prepare a defense, prevent undue prejudicial surprise, or provide inadequate protection against double jeopardy); see also State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395, 408-09 (Tenn. 2008) (the bill of particulars functions (1) to provide details of the offense to assist in preparation for trial; (2) to prevent prejudicial surprise at trial; and (3) to enable the defendant to preserve a plea for d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kendricksgreen1 sentence2005State v. Kendricks, 947 S.W.2d 875, 883 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shropshiregreen1 sentence2004Byrd, 820 S.W.2d at 741 (citing State v. Hicks, 666 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tenn. 1984)); State v. Shropshire, 45 S.W.3d 64, 71 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2000This information was relayed to trial counsel and therefore the issue is without merit. -9- “The purpose of a bill of particulars is to allow a defendant to prepare his defense, to avoid surprise, and to preserve a plea of double jeopardy.” State v. Anderson, 748 S.W.2d 201, 204 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sheltongreen1 sentence1997State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134, 137 (Tenn. 1993). | 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. Hammonds
green
2 sentences2019“While a bill of particulars certainly will not save an otherwise invalid indictment, it can serve to narrow a general indictment and provide a defendant with enough information about the charge to allow the defendant to prepare a defense and avoid prejudicial surprise at trial.” Hammonds, 30 S.W.3d at 303 (citing State v. Byrd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tenn. 1991)). 2004A bill of particulars is used “to narrow a general indictment and provide a defendant with enough information about the charge to allow the defendant to prepare a defense and avoid prejudicial surprise at trial.” Id. | 2 | 2004–2019 |
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.