Alexander v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jefferson

    938 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)   Cited 85 times
    Finding no due process violation after clerk purged exhibits before defendant's retrial because the lost items were not in the State's possession and no showing of bad faith on the part of the State was made

    As the Supreme Court said in Jones v. State, 569 S.W.2d 462 (Tenn. 1978): Strunk v. State, 209 Tenn. 1, 6-9, 348 S.W.2d 339, 342-43 (1957); Alexander v. State, 189 Tenn. 340, 225 S.W.2d 254 (1949); Jenkins v. State, 509 S.W.2d 240, 247-48 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974); Gwinn v. State, 595 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. Crim. App.), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1979); Jones v. State, 526 S.W.2d 130, 133-34 (Tenn. Crim. App.), cert. denied (Tenn. 1975).Jenkins, 509 S.W.2d at 247-48.

  2. Strunk v. State

    348 S.W.2d 339 (Tenn. 1957)   Cited 4 times

    However, the later cases are contrary to the insistence of the defendants. In Alexander v. State, 189 Tenn. 340, 225 S.W.2d 254, in accordance with the motion by the defendants, the jury undertook to fix both the fine and imprisonment as allowed under Ch. 82, Public Acts of 1947, but the jury not only did this but went further and attempted to suspend the sentence. One page 343 of 189 Tenn., at page 255 of 225 S.W.2d opinion by Chief Justice Neil, it is said:

  3. Hartmann v. State

    325 S.W.2d 279 (Tenn. 1959)   Cited 1 times

    A verdict unwarranted by law is insufficient to support a judgment. Alexander v. State, 189 Tenn. 340, 343, 225 S.W.2d 254. Reversed and remanded.

  4. McBride v. State

    290 S.W.2d 648 (Tenn. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    The judge acted strictly in accordance with his duty in sending the jury back to correct their verdict. See Alexander v. State, 189 Tenn. 340, 225 S.W.2d 254; Riley v. State, 189 Tenn. 697, 227 S.W.2d 32, and Waddle v. State, 112 Tenn. 556, 82 S.W. 827. Complaint is made that the court did not charge the jury with regard to the punishment to be assessed until after they had found defendant guilty, after which the court then charged with reference to the punishment and permitted the introduction of evidence of previous similar violations of law by the defendant.

  5. Allen v. State

    No. M2003-01786-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 25, 2004)   Cited 2 times
    Identifying Stinson as "stat[ing] the controlling rule"

    It has long been the law in this state that "where the verdict in a criminal case is not warranted by law no valid judgment can be rendered on it." Alexander v. State, 225 S.W.2d 254, 255 (Tenn. 1949) (citing State v. Ragsdale, 78 Tenn. 671 (Tenn. 1882)); see also State v. Taylor, 995 S.W.2d 78, 85-86 (Tenn.