res gestae exception in Tennessee

2014One could argue that a portion of the court's instruction — that the jury could consider the evidence "for the limited purpose of providing a more complete picture of the parties’ relationship” — painted the pornography evidence as res gestae evidence, but the State did not rely on this theory before trial, and the court did not conduct the res gestae analysis required by State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d at 272 . 12 .

1989The state argues, however, that the statements were spontaneous declarations and properly admitted under either the res gestae exception, citing Shelton v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 310, 460 S.W.2d 869 (1970), or as declarations of a present sense impression, under Hall v. DeSaussure, 41 Tenn. App. 572 , 297 S.W.2d 81 (1956).

1989The state argues, however, that the statements were spontaneous declarations and properly admitted under either the res gestae exception, citing Shelton v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 310, 460 S.W.2d 869 (1970), or as declarations of a present sense impression, under Hall v. DeSaussure, 41 Tenn. App. 572 , 297 S.W.2d 81 (1956).

1989The state argues, however, that the statements were spontaneous declarations and properly admitted under either the res gestae exception, citing Shelton v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 310, 460 S.W.2d 869 (1970), or as declarations of a present sense impression, under Hall v. DeSaussure, 41 Tenn. App. 572 , 297 S.W.2d 81 (1956).

1989Res gestae has been defined as follows: “Res gestae is from the Latin meaning ‘things done’; and includes the circumstances, facts and declarations incidental to the main fact or transaction, necessary to illustrate its character, and also includes acts, words, and declarations which are so closely connected therewith as to constitute a part of the transaction.” (emphasis added.) Shelton, 460 S.W.2d at 873 .

1979Yet the cases will not justify the statement that it must appear by direct evidence that the declarant observed the specific act or fact declared; but only that it must appear, at least inferentially, that he was present and that his declaration arose from personal observation; and it must not appear that the declarant did not personally witness the thing declared. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 674 (Supp.1967), Montesi v. State, Id., 417 S.W.2d at 560-561 .

1979Yet the cases will not justify the statement that it must appear by direct evidence that the declarant observed the specific act or fact declared; but only that it must appear, at least inferentially, that he was present and that his declaration arose from personal observation; and it must not appear that the declarant did not personally witness the thing declared. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 674 (Supp.1967), Montesi v. State, Id., 417 S.W.2d at 560-561 .

1977Canady v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 337, 461 S.W.2d 53 .

1977Canady v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 337, 461 S.W.2d 53 .

1940Co. v. Follett, 168 Tenn., 647 , 80 S. W. (2d), 92, 99 , Chief Justice Gbeeh reviews our cases and cites many from other States dealing with the res gestae rule.

1940Co. v. Follett, 168 Tenn., 647 , 80 S. W. (2d), 92, 99 , Chief Justice Gbeeh reviews our cases and cites many from other States dealing with the res gestae rule.

1939The latest opinions of this Court discussing the application of the res gestae rule are in the cases of Templeton v. State, 146 Tenn., 272, 281 , 240 S. W., 789 , and Garrison v. State, 163 Tenn., 108 , 40 S. W. (2d), 1009 .

1939The latest opinions of this Court discussing the application of the res gestae rule are in the cases of Templeton v. State, 146 Tenn., 272, 281 , 240 S. W., 789 , and Garrison v. State, 163 Tenn., 108 , 40 S. W. (2d), 1009 .

1939The latest opinions of this Court discussing the application of the res gestae rule are in the cases of Templeton v. State, 146 Tenn., 272, 281 , 240 S. W., 789 , and Garrison v. State, 163 Tenn., 108 , 40 S. W. (2d), 1009 .