State v. Cannon

12 Citing cases

  1. State v. Leonard

    No. M2006-00136-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 27, 2007)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that the defendant's argument that he was simply collecting a $100 cocaine debt, rather than committing attempted robbery, "ignores established law that one may not collect a debt in this state, regardless of its legitimacy, by force or violence"

    It is the "manner in which property is taken, rather than to whom it lawfully belongs, [which] is the issue in robbery offenses." State v. Anthony Murff, No. W2001-01459-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. at Jackson, June 11, 2002) (citing State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983)). Although neither Appellant asserted at trial the affirmative defense of "claim of right," as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-107 (2006), as noted above, on appeal, Mason argues that "Leonard was entitled to receive payment for goods he had previously supplied to [the victim]" and Mason had accompanied Leonard only for this purpose.

  2. White by Swafford v. Gerbitz

    892 F.2d 457 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that the setting of bail is an action judicial in character for which court clerk enjoyed absolute immunity

    Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-11-110, which was enacted in 1978, provides: Tennessee v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 897 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); see, e.g., Tennessee v. Voltz, 626 S.W.2d 291 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1981). Other states have expressly recognized the validity of a warrantless arrest of a material witness.

  3. State v. Walls

    No. M2014-01972-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2016)   Cited 3 times

    The State has a duty to exercise due diligence in obtaining a statement and providing it to the defense. State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (citing State v. Hicks, 618 S.W.2d 510, 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)). "The prosecutor's duty to disclose extends not only to material in his or her immediate custody, but also to statements in the possession of the police which are normally obtainable by 'exercise of due diligence,' that is, a request to all officers participating in the investigation or preparation of the case."

  4. State v. Howard

    No. W2012-02109-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 2, 2013)   Cited 4 times

    The State has a duty to exercise due diligence in obtaining a statement and providing it to the defense. State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (citing State v. Hicks, 618 S.W.2d 510, 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)).

  5. State v. Hale

    No. M2011-02138-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2012)   Cited 5 times
    Upholding deadly weapon element when defendant did not put his hand in his pocket or make an explicit threat but demanded money and patted his pocket to imply a weapon

    The State that asserts proof of ownership of the property taken is not essential to a conviction of aggravated robbery. Although this court has said in commenting on the theory of robbery that "[i]t is the 'manner in which property is taken, rather than to whom it lawfully belongs, [which] is the issue in robbery offenses,'" State v. Maurice Leonard and Kenneth Shondale Mason, No. M2006-00136-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 5 (Tenn. Crim. App, Nashville, Mar. 27, 2007) (quoting State v. Anthony Murff, No. W2001-01459-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 8 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, June 11, 2002) (citing State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983)), theft, which is included in every charge of robbery, requires proof that the property was taken without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to deprive the owner of the property, see T.C.A. § 39-14-103. Here, as noted above, the indictment charged that the defendant took the property of "Rita Waters dba Whitwell BP."

  6. Team Design v. Gottlieb

    104 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 58 times
    In Team Design, we noted that "should the judge who conducts the judicial settlement conference later be called upon to decide the issues of liability or damages, it is impossible to avoid questions as to whether he or she can disregard the matters disclosed during the conference or put aside any opinions or judgments already formed based on this information."

    Quotient or gambling verdicts are not lawful in Tennessee. State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 898 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); Mayor of Morristown v. Inman, 47 Tenn. App. 685, 694-95, 342 S.W.2d 71, 76 (1960).Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2829 (1980).

  7. State v. Murff

    No. W2001-01459-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jun. 11, 2002)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. Anthony Murff, No. W2001-01459-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 498, at *39-40 (June 11, 2002 at Jackson), the defendant beat a partially paralyzed, seventy-seven-year-old man with a hammer, and the vulnerability enhancement factor was applied.

    The manner in which property is taken, rather than to whom it lawfully belongs, is the issue in robbery offenses. See State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); Elliott v. State, 454 S.W.2d 187, 188 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1970). "`The gist of the offense of robbery is the felonious and forcible taking from the person of another goods of value by putting him in fear.'"

  8. State v. Ferguson

    No. 03C01-9406-CR-00235 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jul. 17, 1997)   Cited 2 times

    State v Cannon 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983). This duty extends not only to material in the prosecutor's immediate custody, but also to statements in the possession of law enforcement officers participating in the case.

  9. State v. Baker

    785 S.W.2d 132 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 106 times
    Applying the abuse of discretion standard to the review of the use of impeachment evidence

    Delk v. State, 590 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. 1979); State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); State v. Francis, supra. In the instant case, the witness met the Delk standard for determining who is a missing witness.

  10. State v. Thien Duc Le

    743 S.W.2d 199 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    In State v. ThienDuc Le, 743 S.W.2d 199 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1987), the Court considered the alleged error of the trial court in not appointing a Vietnamese language interpreter.

    Taken at its best, if defendant's only intention was to regain the money stolen from him, the law is that one may not commit a breach of the peace to recover his own property, but must resort to the process of the law for redress. State v. Cannon, 661 S.W.2d 893, 899 (Tenn.Cr. App. 1983). A guilty verdict by a jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State.