Moorman v. State

20 Citing cases

  1. State v. Thompson

    No. 03C01-9807-CC-00238 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 24, 1999)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that the trial court's method or responding to the jury's question could not have affected the verdict because the court merely referred the jury back to the original instructions and included no new or erroneous information

    A lesser offense, however, need not be charged if the evidence supports only the greater offense or no offense at all.Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Tutton, 875 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tenn. 1993).

  2. Watkins v. State

    No. M2008-02098-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 23, 2010)   Cited 2 times
    Finding that the petitioner had failed to carry his burden of proving that trial counsel was deficient for omitting the second degree murder instruction issue in the motion for new trial because there was no direct proof at the post-conviction hearing about why trial counsel did not include the issue

    In any event, the law at the time provided that no lesser included offense instruction was required when the evidence supported either the existence of the greater offense or no offense at all. See, e.g.,Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. 1978). In this case, the Petitioner admitted his guilt of the robberies that were the predicate felonies for the two felony murder counts.

  3. Tankesly v. State

    No. M2005-02008-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Jun. 28, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    "When there is no evidence to support a lesser included offense so that the accused can only be guilty of the greater offense or no offense at all, it is not error to refuse to instruct on the lesser included offenses." Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978); see State v. Tutton, 875 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tenn., 1993). Again, the record does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court.

  4. Adams v. State

    No. W2004-01013-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. May. 6, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Our courts were holding at the time, however, that lesser included offenses need not be charged when the evidence supported only the greater offense or no offense at all. See Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Tutton, 875 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tenn. 1993).

  5. Elizabethton v. North Am. Fib.

    No. E2003-02930-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2004)   Cited 2 times
    In City of Elizabethton v. N. Am. Fibers, Inc., No. E2003-02930-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 2636710, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2004), the court applied the doctrine of nullum tempus to a city's suit for breach of easement involving an inaccessible sewage system and the risk of catastrophic levels of environmental contamination of the Watauga river.

    Failure of a defendant to cite authority for propositions in his argument on appeal constitutes waiver of the issue. State v. Houston, 688 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1984); Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978). The brief of the appellant should contain an argument setting forth the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record.

  6. Edwards v. State

    No. M2002-02124-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2003)   Cited 8 times
    Affirming denial of post-conviction relief

    At the time of Petitioner's trial, if the evidence supported a conviction of the greater offense or no offense at all, it was not error to refuse to instruct as to the lesser-included offenses. Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978) (quoting O'Neil v. State, 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 518, 533, 455 S.W.2d 597, 604 (1970)). There was no evidence at trial that Petitioner was guilty only of the lesser-included offenses of the charged offenses.

  7. Hayes v. Strutton

    No. E2003-00938-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2003)

    Failure of a defendant to cite authority for propositions in his argument on appeal constitutes waiver of the issue. State v. Houston, 688 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1984); Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978). The brief of the appellant should contain an argument setting forth the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record.

  8. Moorman v. Tennessee D.O.C.

    No. M1999-02675-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2003)

    The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction. Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978). In May 1998, Mr. Moorman requested the Department of Correction to render a declaratory order under Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 4-5-224 (1998).

  9. State v. Behrens

    138 Idaho 279 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 2 times

    This is so because employees are custodians of the property on the business premises for the benefit of the owner/employer and therefore are deemed to be in constructive possession. See People v. Nguyen, 24 Cal.4th 756, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 14 P.3d 221, 224 (2000); People v. Jones, 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 329, 331 (2000); People v. Borghesi, 40 P.3d 15, 21 (Colo.Ct.App. 2001); State v. Faatea, 648 P.2d 197, 198 (Haw. 1982); State v. Cottone, 145 A.2d 509, 513 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1958); Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978); Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 433 S.E.2d 508, 510 (Va.Ct.App. 1993); State v. Collins, 329 S.E.2d 839, 844 (W.Va. 1984). It is of no consequence that the employee may lack personal access to the property that is stolen, as where valuables are taken from a safe that the employee cannot open.

  10. Rhea C. v. Town of Graysville

    No. E2001-02313-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2002)   Cited 14 times

    State v. Houston, 688 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim.App. 1984); Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978). The brief of the appellant should contain an argument setting forth the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record.