Sheets v. Hathcock

9 Citing cases

  1. State v. Harrison

    No. W2006-00483-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2008)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that district attorney general could not use a subpoena under the statute as a discovery device

    The State asserts that Mr. Harrison does not have standing to challenge the subpoena issued to Dr. Wilson. The State relies on what it characterizes as "the long-standing rule that only one to whom a subpoena is directed has standing to challenge the subpoena," citing State v. McClain, No. E2004-01182-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1384877, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. June 13, 2005) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed); State v. Hart, No. E2003-00053-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22532500, at *14 (Tenn.Crim.App. Nov. 7, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2004); State v. Fears, 659 S.W.2d 370, 376 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); and Sheets v. Hathcock, 528 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1975). We have determined that this "rule," first stated without citation to any authority by Judge Charles Galbreath in Sheets v. Hathcock, is much too broad.

  2. Houston v. State

    593 S.W.2d 267 (Tenn. 1980)   Cited 94 times
    In Houston v. State, 593 S.W.2d 267 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 891, 101 S.Ct. 251, 66 L.Ed.2d 117 (1980), the original state opinion in the direct appeal of this case, the majority affirmed Houston's conviction for first degree murder, finding explicitly that premeditation and deliberation could be inferred from the circumstances of the murder, including the evidence of multiple gunshot wounds.

    This evidence is properly admitted. See Buckingham v. State, 540 S.W.2d 660, 663-664 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1049, 97 S.Ct. 759, 50 L.Ed.2d 764 (1977); Sheets v. Hathcock, 528 S.W.2d 47, 50 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1975)."

  3. State v. Patel

    No. M2016-00460-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 25, 2017)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Our supreme court, in addressing a similarly worded predecessor to section 38-6-102(a), has found a TBI agent's administrative subpoena power pursuant to section 38-6-102(a) to be similar to other types of administrative subpoenas which explicitly provide that subpoenas may be issued for witnesses and "documentary evidence." State v. Hathcock, 528 S.W.2d 47, 48-49 (Tenn. 1975), overruled on other grounds, State v. Harrison, 270 S.W.3d 21 (Tenn. 2008). Accordingly, we do not find the Defendants' argument that section 38-6-102(a) is limited only to "witnesses" to be persuasive.

  4. State v. McLain

    No. E2012-01082-CCA-RM-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that the State was provided with "ample opportunity to cure the defect" of the subpoena that was signed by a court clerk rather than a judge as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-17-123

    Harrison, 270 S.W.3d at 26. The court noted that a number of this court's cases, including the appellant's, had followed the case law established in Sheets v. Hathcock, 528 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975), which held that "a person cannot challenge a subpoena issued to a third party." Harrison, 270 S.W.3d at 28.

  5. HAAS v. HAAS

    No. M2000-02850-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2002)

    The Fifth Amendment protection against compulsory furnishing of evidence against oneself does not extend to non-privileged communications to third parties. Sheets v. Hathcock, 528 S.w.2d 47 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1975). Mr. Haas' Answer is a non-privileged document of public record.

  6. In Matter of Wayne H. v. State

    Appeal No. 01-A-01-9807-CV-00383. No. II-152-698 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 1999)

    While the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects one against compulsory furnishing of evidence against oneself, it does not extend to non-privileged communications to third parties. Sheets v. Hathcock, 528 S.W.2d 47, 50 (Tenn. Cr. App. 1975). This issue is without merit.

  7. State v. Hodgkinson

    778 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that under Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 39-1-306 the principal must first be tried and convicted before accessory after the fact can be established

    Furthermore, the person to whom the subpoena was directed is the only person with standing to contest its validity. Shelts v. Hathcock, 528 S.W.2d 47 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1975). Defendant Jones contests the use of his pre-trial statements to officers on the ground these statements were rendered involuntary due to his intoxication.

  8. State v. Fears

    659 S.W.2d 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 60 times
    Finding no Fourth Amendment protected privacy interest in medical records kept by health center

    The person to whom the subpoena was directed was the only party having standing to contest the validity of the subpoena. Sheets v. Hathcock, 528 S.W.2d 47 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1975). Many witnesses consent to come to court without the necessity of a subpoena; this does not render them incompetent witnesses.

  9. Clariday v. State

    552 S.W.2d 759 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 40 times
    Concluding that there was no showing of improper influence, actual partiality, or inherent bias when counsel failed to elicit that a juror was the student of the District Attorney General, who did not participate in the trial

    As this court has recently observed, "[w]hile the Fifth Amendment . . . protects one against compulsory furnishing of evidence against oneself, it does not extend to non-privileged communications to third parties." Sheets v. Hathcock, 528 S.W.2d 47, 50 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1975). Accord, Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 93 S.Ct. 611, 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973).