list of non-exclusive factors in Tennessee

2013Although the Court in Crawford declined to comprehensively define “testimonial,” it noted that “[a]n accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51 ; see also State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799, 813 (Tenn. 2010) (articulating a list of non-exclusive factors to consider when determining whether a particular statement is “testimonial”).

2010Id.

2025In McDaniel v. CSX Transport., Inc., the supreme court identified a list of non- exclusive factors for a trial court to consider when determining the admissibility and reliability of expert testimony. 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997).

2024These factors include: (1) the preference of the child; (2) the potential effect of the change on the child’s relationship with both parents; (3) the amount of time the child has had his or her current surname; (4) “the degree of community respect associated with” each parent’s surname; and (5) “the difficulty, harassment, or embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing either its present or its proposed surname.” Id. (citations omitted).

2024Parker, 350 S.W.3d at 898 -99 (quoting State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799, 813 (Tenn. 2010)).

2021The Tennessee Supreme court set out the following list of non-exclusive factors to consider in determining whether the State proved that the defendant’s removal or confinement of a victim “was to a greater degree than that necessary to commit” the accompanying felony: (1) “the nature and duration of the victim’s removal or confinement by the defendant”; (2) “whether the removal or confinement occurred during the commission of the separate offense”; (3) “whether the interference with the victim’s liberty was inherent in the nature of the separate offense”; (4) “whether the removal or -9- confin

2009In Daubert v. MerreU Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2795 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the United States Supreme court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that a trial court “ensure that any and all scientific testimony ... is not only relevant, but reliable.” In McDaniel , our supreme court set forth the following list of non-exclusive factors that may be useful to a trial court in determining the reliability of scientific evidence: A Tennessee trial court may consider in determining reliability: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the m

2009In Daubert v. MerreU Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2795 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the United States Supreme court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that a trial court “ensure that any and all scientific testimony ... is not only relevant, but reliable.” In McDaniel , our supreme court set forth the following list of non-exclusive factors that may be useful to a trial court in determining the reliability of scientific evidence: A Tennessee trial court may consider in determining reliability: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the m