6 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2010 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. Trustyred2 sentences2010State v. Trusty, 919 S.W.2d 305, 310 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 341-342 (Tenn. Crim. 2010State v. T rusty, 919 S.W.2d 305, 310 (Tenn. 1996); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18 -110( a). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Cutshawgreen2 sentences2010State v. Trusty, 919 S.W.2d 305, 310 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 341-342 (Tenn. Crim. 2000Thus, a defendant has a right to a jury instruction on all lesser included offenses of the charged offenses if “the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser offense.” State v. Langford, 994 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Tenn. 1998) (citing State v. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d 587, 593 (Tenn. 1998)); see also State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 341-342 (Tenn. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Elygreen1 sentence2004As observed in State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 727 (Tenn. 2001), the right to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense derives from the defendant’s right to trial by jury in order to permit the jury to resolve disputed factual issues raised by the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boldengreen1 sentence2000Thus, a defendant has a right to a jury instruction on all lesser included offenses of the charged offenses if “the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser offense.” State v. Langford, 994 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Tenn. 1998) (citing State v. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d 587, 593 (Tenn. 1998)); see also State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 341-342 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langfordgreen1 sentence2000Thus, a defendant has a right to a jury instruction on all lesser included offenses of the charged offenses if “the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser offense.” State v. Langford, 994 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Tenn. 1998) (citing State v. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d 587, 593 (Tenn. 1998)); see also State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 341-342 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.