jury a limiting instruction (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

jury a limiting instruction in Tennessee

9 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2025 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Jordangreen
tenncrimapp · 2003 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2008–2012
2 sentences

2012See State v. Jordan, 116 S.W.3d 8, 18 (Tenn. Crim.

2008See State v. Jordan, 116 S.W.3d 8, 18 (Tenn.Crim.App.2003) (stating that jurors are presumed to follow the instructions given *759 them absent evidence to the contrary).

33
State v. Inlowgreen
tenncrimapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025State v. Inlow, 52 S.W.3d 101, 106 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Littlegreen
tenncrimapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003Furthermore, after Long’s testimony, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction restricting the jury’s consideration of Long’s testimony as to the appellant’s intent in counts two and three, specifically instructing the jury to not consider the testimony “as to whether or not there’s any propensity by the defendant to commit the crime.” See State v. Little, 854 S.W.2d 643, 649 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Carpentergreen
tenncrimapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002After hearing testimony from the victim’s two sisters, Shelton and Fry, in a jury-out hearing, the trial court eventually agreed to -4- allow Shelton to testify that the victim called her from his apartment around midnight a few hours before his death and in response to her question about what was wrong, the victim told her that “Wanda was there.” After Shelton gave this testimony, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction, informing the jury that they were to consider Shelton’s statement that the victim told her that “Wanda was there” for the sole purpose of “establish[ing] the def

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Braggs green
tenncrimapp · 1980
1 sentence

2015Braggs, 604 S.W.2d at 885 .

12015–2015
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
1 sentence

2013Thus, based on the entire record, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the introduction of a similar offense prejudiced the Petitioner to the extent that it created a “reasonable probability that but for counsel’s error[] the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Vaughn, 202 S.W.3d at 116 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ).

12013–2013
Vaughn v. State green
tenn · 2006
1 sentence

2013Thus, based on the entire record, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the introduction of a similar offense prejudiced the Petitioner to the extent that it created a “reasonable probability that but for counsel’s error[] the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Vaughn, 202 S.W.3d at 116 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ).

12013–2013
Bruton v. United States green
scotus · 1968
1 sentence

1997The petitioner now contends that the admission of Sexton’s confession violated his Confrontation Clause rights under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).

11997–1997

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (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

TX 54 (1984–2026) CA 25 (1992–2025) OH 24 (1999–2024) IL 19 (1991–2025) MI 17 (2014–2022) WA 14 (1964–2019) NY 13 (1992–2022) GA 10 (1991–2025) KS 10 (2007–2026) CT 9 (2005–2019) NJ 9 (1995–2025) TN 9 (1997–2025) NC 6 (1994–2014) LA 6 (1999–2021) WV 6 (1994–2024) FL 6 (2007–2019) AL 6 (2003–2015) CO 6 (2001–2026) MA 6 (1980–2009) IA 6 (2016–2025) AZ 5 (1988–2021) OR 4 (2013–2025) HI 4 (1971–2020) MS 4 (1998–2015) UT 3 (2009–2021) WY 3 (2000–2020) VA 3 (1998–2024) DE 2 (2019–2019) MO 2 (1993–2019) PA 2 (2004–2023) WI 2 (1993–2020) ND 2 (2014–2016) NH 2 (1983–1985) MT 2 (2010–2020) NE 2 (2017–2018)

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