Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Hambrick v. State

181 Tenn. 544 (Tenn. 1944)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Hambrick v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. State

    218 Tenn. 359 (Tenn. 1966)   Cited 10 times

    Defendant Williams' sixth assignment of error urges that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial, because of certain prejudicial remarks made by the Assistant Attorney General. The record shows that the Trial Judge promptly instructed the jury to wholly disregard these comments of the Attorney General. If such instruction did not cure the error, though we think it did, it would constitute, at most, only harmless error. See Hambrick v. State (1944) 181 Tenn. 544, 181 S.W.2d 957. This leaves only for discussion defendant Phillips' assignment of error 1, to the effect that the evidence does not support the verdict.

  2. Ledford v. State

    568 S.W.2d 113 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 9 times
    In Ledford v. State, 568 S.W.2d 113, 117 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978), the prosecutor argued that "if the jury `knows' the defendant is guilty, but concludes that the State has failed to prove its case, the jury must nevertheless convict the defendant because the State has actually proved its case otherwise the jury could not `know' the defendant was guilty."

    There is a line of authority in this State that holds when an objection is made and sustained coupled with prompt instructions the error is cured. Hambrick v. State, 181 Tenn. 544, 181 S.W.2d 957 (1944); Williams v. State, 218 Tenn. 359, 403 S.W.2d 319 (1966); Huckaby v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr. 84, 457 S.W.2d 872, 875 (1970); French v. State, 489 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1972); King v. State, 1 Tenn. Cr.App. 137, 430 S.W.2d 810 (1968); Buchanan v. State, 2 Tenn.Cr. 398, 454 S.W.2d 178, 182 (1970); Squires v. State, 525 S.W.2d 686, 694 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1975); Tooley v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr. 652, 448 S.W.2d 683, 687 (1969). Or, more adroitly stated in Morrison v. State, 217 Tenn. 374, 390, 391, 400 S.W.2d 239 (1966):