State v. Caughron

339 Citing cases

  1. State v. Cazes

    875 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1994)   Cited 951 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 269, the court concluded, without discussion, that this argument had been previously rejected in Caughron, 855 S.W.2d at 542.

    It is well-established that a trial judge has broad discretion in controlling the course and conduct of the trial, and that in exercising that discretion, he or she must be careful not to express any thought that might lead the jury to infer that the judge is in favor of or against the defendant in a criminal trial. State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 536 (Tenn. 1993). As an example of the trial judge's alleged bias, Cazes points to occasions during voir dire when the trial judge refused to allow his counsel to approach the bench, refused to allow defense counsel to ask a question previously asked on voir dire, and instructed defense counsel not to address a prospective juror by her first name.

  2. State v. Seals

    No. E2006-01878-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 8, 2008)   Cited 1 times
    Stating that when a juror is not "legally disqualified or there is no inherent prejudice, the burden is on the defendant to show that a juror is in some way biased or prejudiced" (quoting State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 539 (Tenn. 1993))

    "Where a juror is not legally disqualified or there is no inherent prejudice, the burden is on the defendant to show that a juror is in some way biased or prejudiced." State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 539 (Tenn. 1993) (citing Bowman v. State, 598 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1980). The defendant bears the burden of proving a prima facie case of bias or partiality.

  3. Caughron v. State

    No. 03C01-9707-CC-00301 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 1999)

    The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 979, 114 S.CT. 475 (1993). The petitioner filed his post-conviction petition on May 18, 1994. Evidentiary hearings were held on November 13, 1996, February 10, 1997, and March 14, 1997, and the trial court subsequently entered its findings and conclusions that granted the petitioner relief as to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim at the penalty phase of the trial but denied the petition in all other respects.

  4. State v. Samuel

    243 S.W.3d 592 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 29 times
    Finding that a bruise and testimony that rape was painful and that defendant choked the victim constituted bodily injury

    " In State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526 (Tenn. 1993), our supreme court allowed third party testimony regarding the State's primary witness to a murder. In Caughron, the key witness to a murder was a fourteen-year-old girl.

  5. State v. Austin

    No. W1999-00281-CCA-R3-DD (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 6, 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Absent an abuse of that discretion, such rulings will not be reversed on appeal. State v. Vincent C. Sims, No. W1998-00634-CCA-R3-DD (citing State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 541 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 979, 114 S.Ct. 475 (1993)). A. Transcript of Deposition of Jack Charles Blankenship

  6. State v. Young

    No. 01C01-9605-CC-00208 (Tenn. Crim. App. May. 22, 1998)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that the statement, "I'm sorry, I'm just wondering if I should have a lawyer," was not an unequivocal request for counsel in light of subsequent agreement to make a statement

    Tenn. R. Crim. P. 26.2(a) (emphasis added). Although the Tennessee Supreme Court has strongly recommended that such statements be provided before trial in order to expedite trials and avoid lengthy recesses, State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 535 (Tenn. 1993), nothing in the rule requires that either party provide a witness statement prior to trial. Moreover, the record in this case indicates that the witness arrived in Murfreesboro the day before he testified.

  7. State v. Reid

    91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002)   Cited 1,189 times
    Holding that the defendant was not entitled to a mistrial when evidence regarding the defendant's prior crimes was already before the jury and the trial court gave curative instructions

    State v. Vincent C. Sims, No. W1998-00634-CCA-R3-DD (citing State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 541 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 979, 114 S.Ct. 475(1993)). Initially, we acknowledge that the record belies the Appellant's assertion that the audiotape's admission was sought to rebut the testimony of Dr. Martell.

  8. State v. Cribbs

    967 S.W.2d 773 (Tenn. 1998)   Cited 367 times
    Holding that, although a defendant cannot have separate judgments of conviction for both premeditated murder and felony murder for a single act of murder, both counts should be submitted to the jury and later merged into one judgment of conviction

    Our supreme court has consistently found this special request made by the defendant to be improper. See Van Tran, 864 S.W.2d at 481; State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 543 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 21 (Tenn. 1990), aff'd, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991); State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 367 (Tenn.

  9. State v. Mustafa

    No. M2020-01060-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jun. 23, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Pursuant to Rule 26.2, a party has no duty to provide the State with a copy of a witness's statement until after the witness has testified on direct examination. State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 535 (Tenn. 1993) (citing State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387, 394 (Tenn. 1989)). "The purpose of Rule 26.2 is to enable counsel to examine a witness's statements in order to test the credibility of that witness at trial."

  10. State v. Allen

    No. M2019-00667-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 10, 2020)   Cited 1 times
    In Allen, the defendant was arrested on June 18, 2015, for aggravated rape and domestic assault of his wife based primarily upon her allegations to the investigating detective. 2020 WL 7252538, at *1.

    In her dissenting opinion in State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526 (Tenn. 1993), Justice Daughtrey stated the following about suppression of Brady material: Although the complete non-disclosure of significant exculpatory evidence often makes an easy case for a due process violation, delayed disclosure requires an inquiry into whether the delay prevented the defense from using the disclosed material effectively in preparing and presenting the defendant's case.