8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2020 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 of Tennessee v. Prince Adamsgreen1 sentence2020Our supreme court, however, explicitly overruled Crawford as the standard for evaluating convictions premised on circumstantial evidence and adopted the federal standard “that direct and circumstantial evidence should be treated the same when weighing the sufficiency of such evidence.” Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 381 ; see also State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 501 (Tenn. 2015) (acknowledging the departure from the Crawford standard and the adoption of the federal standard); State v. Adams, 405 S.W.3d 641, 662 (Tenn. 2015) (“In Dorantes, this Court abolished any distinction between the standard of pr | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. William Eugene Hallgreen1 sentence2020Our supreme court, however, explicitly overruled Crawford as the standard for evaluating convictions premised on circumstantial evidence and adopted the federal standard “that direct and circumstantial evidence should be treated the same when weighing the sufficiency of such evidence.” Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 381 ; see also State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 501 (Tenn. 2015) (acknowledging the departure from the Crawford standard and the adoption of the federal standard); State v. Adams, 405 S.W.3d 641, 662 (Tenn. 2015) (“In Dorantes, this Court abolished any distinction between the standard of pr | 1 | 1 |
Dusky v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012The test applicable under the federal constitution in evaluating a defendant’s mental competency to stand trial was set forth by the United States Supreme Court as: whether a criminal defendant “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Id. (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960)); see also State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 173-74 (Tenn. 1991) (acknowledging the adoption of the federal standard in Tennessee). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackgreen1 sentence2012The test applicable under the federal constitution in evaluating a defendant’s mental competency to stand trial was set forth by the United States Supreme Court as: whether a criminal defendant “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Id. (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960)); see also State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 173-74 (Tenn. 1991) (acknowledging the adoption of the federal standard in Tennessee). | 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. Dorantes
green
2 sentences2020Our supreme court, however, explicitly overruled Crawford as the standard for evaluating convictions premised on circumstantial evidence and adopted the federal standard “that direct and circumstantial evidence should be treated the same when weighing the sufficiency of such evidence.” Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 381 ; see also State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 501 (Tenn. 2015) (acknowledging the departure from the Crawford standard and the adoption of the federal standard); State v. Adams, 405 S.W.3d 641, 662 (Tenn. 2015) (“In Dorantes, this Court abolished any distinction between the standard of pr 2013Id. | 7 | 2011–2020 |
Drope v. Missouri
green
1 sentence2012The test applicable under the federal constitution in evaluating a defendant’s mental competency to stand trial was set forth by the United States Supreme Court as: whether a criminal defendant “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Id. (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960)); see also State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 173-74 (Tenn. 1991) (acknowledging the adoption of the federal standard in Tennessee). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.