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 1934–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bruton v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025Sometimes they begin to . . . wet on themselves again.” 3 Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 130-37 (1968) (holding that admission at a joint trial of a non- testifying co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant constituted prejudicial error even though the trial court gave an instruction that the confession could only be used against the co-defendant and must be disregarded with respect to the defendant). -6- H.I. was moved into D.S.’s classroom late in the fall 2017 semester. 2024App. 1996); see Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 130-37 (1968) (holding that admission at a joint trial of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant constituted prejudicial error even though the trial court gave an instruction that the confession could only be used against the co-defendant and must be disregarded with respect to the defendant). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Stevensgreen1 sentence2026Regarding Officer Bradley’s testimony as an expert witness, “Questions regarding the qualifications, admissibility, relevancy, and competency of expert testimony are matters left within the broad discretion of the trial court.” State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Faulknergreen1 sentence2013As for trial counsels’ failure to raise the issue on direct appeal, in State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 59 (Tenn. 2005), a first degree murder case, our supreme court concluded -14- that the “superfluous language in the ‘knowingly’ definition did not lessen the burden of proof because it did not relieve the State of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted knowingly” and, therefore, constituted harmless error. | 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. Francis
green
1 sentence2002The law regarding the appropriate circumstances for giving the “missing witness” instruction was explained by our supreme court in State v. Francis, 669 S.W.2d 85 (Tenn. 1984). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. West
green
1 sentence1997See State v. Brown, 836 S.W .2d 530 (Te nn. 1992); -14- State v. West, 844 S.W.2d 144 (Tenn.1992); T.P.I.-Crim. 7.01 (3 d. ed.). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Malone & Bowden Tile & Marble Co. v. Hall
neutral
1 sentence1934In Malone & Bowden Tile & Marble Co. v. Hall, 4 Tenn. App., 307 , it was said: “Nor do we think it necessary that the trial judge should do more than to charge the provisions of the ordinance, without going further and construing and defining its meaning, where the language of the ordinance is intelligible and free from doubt and ambiguity *198 as to its meaning. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.