Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2019 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 v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2007First Degree Premeditated Murder In State v. Jackson, our supreme court held that “the second degree murder presumption is now obsolete.” 173 S.W.3d 401, 403 (Tenn. 2005). 2006In State v. Jackson, our supreme court held that “the second degree murder presumption is now obsolete.” State v. Jackson, 173 S.W.3d 401, 403 (Tenn. 2005). | 2 | 2 |
Rashe Moore v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2019However, there is no evidence that the Petitioner was adequately provoked to support such an instruction. -46- Furthermore, whether a petitioner has suffered prejudice resulting from his counsel’s failure to advocate proper jury instructions depends on “whether a reasonable probability exists that a properly instructed jury would have convicted the petitioner of the lesser-included offense instead of the charged offense.” Moore v. State, 485 S.W.3d 411, 420-21 (Tenn. 2016) (citing Pylant, 263 S.W.3d at 869 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boughgreen1 sentence2011Cf. State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tenn.2004) (recognizing that sufficiency of the evidence may be challenged even absent a timely motion for new trial); Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 , 655 n. 4 (Tenn.2003) (“Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e), issues not specifically raised in a timely motion for a new trial, other than sufficiency of the evidence, are not reviewed on appeal.”) (emphasis added); State v. Durham, 614 S.W.2d 815 , 816 n. 1 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pylant v. State
green
1 sentence2019However, there is no evidence that the Petitioner was adequately provoked to support such an instruction. -46- Furthermore, whether a petitioner has suffered prejudice resulting from his counsel’s failure to advocate proper jury instructions depends on “whether a reasonable probability exists that a properly instructed jury would have convicted the petitioner of the lesser-included offense instead of the charged offense.” Moore v. State, 485 S.W.3d 411, 420-21 (Tenn. 2016) (citing Pylant, 263 S.W.3d at 869 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Durham
green
1 sentence2011Cf. State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tenn.2004) (recognizing that sufficiency of the evidence may be challenged even absent a timely motion for new trial); Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 , 655 n. 4 (Tenn.2003) (“Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e), issues not specifically raised in a timely motion for a new trial, other than sufficiency of the evidence, are not reviewed on appeal.”) (emphasis added); State v. Durham, 614 S.W.2d 815 , 816 n. 1 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981) (same). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wallace v. State
green
1 sentence2011Cf. State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tenn.2004) (recognizing that sufficiency of the evidence may be challenged even absent a timely motion for new trial); Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 , 655 n. 4 (Tenn.2003) (“Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e), issues not specifically raised in a timely motion for a new trial, other than sufficiency of the evidence, are not reviewed on appeal.”) (emphasis added); State v. Durham, 614 S.W.2d 815 , 816 n. 1 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981) (same). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Burns
green
1 sentence2007The petitioner also alleges that Counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue of lesser- included offense instructions in the motion for new trial because that failure effectively prevented him from receiving the retroactive benefit of State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999), on direct appeal. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Bland
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Momon v. State
green
1 sentence2005“A rule that merely restates or reemphasizes pre-existing state law is not one that is new.” Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn.2000). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Brown
red
2 sentences2005We note that the perceived vitality of the second degree murder presumption after the revision of the criminal code appears to have been generated from this Court’s opinion in State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn.1992). 2005There, the Court stated, “The law in Tennessee has long recognized that once the homicide has been established, it is presumed to be murder in the second degree.” Id. at 543 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.