6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2020 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. Goltzgreen2 sentences2020Nevertheless, the post-conviction court addressed the merits of the prosecutorial misconduct claim and stated that Petitioner’s claim did not qualify as prosecutorial misconduct under State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tenn. Crim. 2005For an appellant to be successful on a prosecutorial misconduct claim, he must prove that the prosecutor’s conduct was “so inflammatory that it affected the verdict to the Appellant’s detriment.” State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Harrington v. Stategreen2 sentences2005To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must show that there was an impropriety and that it “affected the verdict to the prejudice of the defendant.” State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913, 917 (Tenn.2000); Harrington v. State, 215 Tenn. 338 , 385 S.W.2d 758, 759 (1965). 2005To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must show that there was an impropriety and that it “affected the verdict to the prejudice of the defendant.” State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913, 917 (Tenn.2000); Harrington v. State, 215 Tenn. 338 , 385 S.W.2d 758, 759 (1965). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2016When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, this court must review the record to determine “whether such conduct could have affected the verdict to the prejudice of the defendant.” State v. Smith, 803 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chalmersgreen2 sentences2005To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must show that there was an impropriety and that it "affected the verdict to the prejudice of the defendant." State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913, 917 (Tenn.2000); Harrington v. State, 215 Tenn. 338 , 385 S.W.2d 758, 759 (1965). 2005To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must show that there was an impropriety and that it “affected the verdict to the prejudice of the defendant.” State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913, 917 (Tenn.2000); Harrington v. State, 215 Tenn. 338 , 385 S.W.2d 758, 759 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2003In Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689, 699-700 (Tenn. 1995), our supreme court considered a similar situation, concluding that the failure of a petitioner to explain why the basis whereby his pretrial statement should have been suppressed or to question, at the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel with regard to his claimed negligence in that regard constituted a waiver of the allegation: -2- The record shows the only "statement" made by the appellant consisted of a denial that he had known and worked for the victim and a failure to mention Homecrafters until the police mentioned it when asked w | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.