unequivocal rule in Tennessee

2020See State v. Page, 184 S.W.3d 223, 230-31 (Tenn. 2006) (enumerating the factors necessary to grant plain error relief).

2020See Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 282 .

2017See State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 641-42 (Tenn. Crim.

2016I write separately to express my opinion that the question posed by the trial judge was essentially a comment on credibility and violated an unequivocal rule of law. “[J]udges in Tennessee are prohibited by our constitution from commenting upon the credibility of witnesses or upon the evidence in the case.” State v. Suttles, 767 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Tenn. 1989); see also Tenn. Const. Art.

2016App., Knoxville, Aug. 3, 2009), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 321 S.W.3d 501 (Tenn. 2010) (“Although the post-verdict filing of the Code section 40- 35-120(i)(2) statement clearly breached an unequivocal rule of law, we cannot glean from the record whether the violation of the statute adversely affected the defendant.”).

2016The supreme court first rejected Cooper‟s argument that the State had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had served separate periods of incarceration as required by Code section 40-35-120, concluding “that the certified Oregon judgment constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cooper had previously served a separate period of incarceration.” Id. at 506 .

2012See Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d at 808 .

2009Further, “felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault committed by intentionally or knowingly causing another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury by use or display of a deadly weapon.” State v. Moore, 77 S.W.3d 132, 136 (Tenn. 2002).4 In the case herein, the indictment alleged that Appellant committed aggravated assault by utilizing a deadly weapon to cause Mr. Hall to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury, as opposed to aggravated assault by causing bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon.