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.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2022 1 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. Marcus Popegreen1 sentence2015App. Dec. 27, 2012). -9- 427 S.W.3d 363, 369 (Tenn. 2013) (stating that the jury resolves “questions of fact, such as those presented by evidence of alibi or the identity of the perpetrator”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewtergreen1 sentence2015App. Dec. 27, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 8, 2013). -12- The perpetrator‘s identity ―may be established solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.‖ State v. Lewter, 313 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Tenn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ricegreen1 sentence2015Furthermore, the identity of the perpetrator ―is an essential element of any crime.‖ State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006). 4 In his brief, the Defendant cites to the standard from Crawford despite it having been expressly overruled by our supreme court over four years ago and this court‘s repeated warnings that Crawford ―is no longer representative of the current state of the law in Tennessee.‖ State v. Deborah Davis, No. E2011-01519-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 6727512 , at *11 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davidsongreen1 sentence2014App. Dec. 27, 2012), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. May 8, 2013). -24- See State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 614 (Tenn. 2003); Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660 . | 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. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2022Ferguson governs claims regarding the State’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence. 2 S.W.3d at 915-17 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Bland
green
1 sentence2014App. Dec. 27, 2012), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. May 8, 2013). -24- See State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 614 (Tenn. 2003); Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Page
green
2 sentences2004In support of his argument, the defendant relies upon this court's decision in State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781 (Tenn. Crim.App.2002), a decision filed long after the trial of this case. 2004In support of his argument, the defendant relies upon this court’s decision in State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781 (Tenn.Crim.App.2002), a decision filed long after the trial of this case. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gasper v. District Court of Seventh Judicial Dist.
green
2 sentences1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve 1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Wilson
neutral
2 sentences1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve 1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Herron
neutral
1 sentence1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Canupp v. State
neutral
1 sentence1979Gunkle v. State, 65 Tenn. 625 (1873); State v. Herron, supra; Canupp v. State, 97 Tenn. 635 , 37 S.W. 547 (1896); Bird v. State, 103 Tenn. 343 , 52 S.W. 1076 (1899). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Bird v. State
green
2 sentences1979Gunkle v. State, 65 Tenn. 625 (1873); State v. Herron, supra; Canupp v. State, 97 Tenn. 635 , 37 S.W. 547 (1896); Bird v. State, 103 Tenn. 343 , 52 S.W. 1076 (1899). 1979Gunkle v. State, 65 Tenn. 625 (1873); State v. Herron, supra; Canupp v. State, 97 Tenn. 635 , 37 S.W. 547 (1896); Bird v. State, 103 Tenn. 343 , 52 S.W. 1076 (1899). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Prior v. State
green
1 sentence1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Gunkle v. State
green
1 sentence1979Gunkle v. State, 65 Tenn. 625 (1873); State v. Herron, supra; Canupp v. State, 97 Tenn. 635 , 37 S.W. 547 (1896); Bird v. State, 103 Tenn. 343 , 52 S.W. 1076 (1899). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve 1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Lombardo
green
2 sentences1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve 1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Fisher
green
2 sentences1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve 1979In support of this contention, the defendant cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution, Art. 1, § 14, that “no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment,” and dictum in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 445 , 7 S.W. 37 , 38 (1888) to the effect that an “indictment, without the endorsement, ‘A true bill,’ followed by the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, is utterly worthless, and devoid of any legal efficiency whatever.” T.C.A. § 40-1706 provides that an “indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.