State v. Richardson

56 Citing cases

  1. State v. White

    362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012)   Cited 256 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Overruling State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2008); State v. Fuller, 172 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2005); State v. Cozart, 54 S.W.3d 242 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991)

    Accordingly, the two-part Dixon test addresses (1) whether the movement or confinement of the victim was beyond that necessary to consummate the accompanying crime; and (2) whether the additional movement or confinement prevented the victim from summoning help, lessened the defendant's risk of detection, or created a significant danger or increased the victim's risk of harm. State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438, 442–43 (Tenn.2008). Under the first prong of the Dixon test, the distance of the victim's movement and the duration or place of the victim's confinement were identified as factors to be considered when determining if the movement or confinement was beyond that necessary to consummate the accompanying crime.

  2. State v. Spates

    No. W2009-02437-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 25, 2011)

    817 S.W.2d 299, 306 (Tenn. 1991), abrogated by State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tenn. 1997), as recognized in State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438, 443 (Tenn. 2008). Later, in place of Anthony's "essentially incidental" analysis, the supreme court formulated a two-prong analysis to determine whether the evidence supported a separate conviction for kidnapping.

  3. State v. Hardy

    No. W2009-01366-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jul. 21, 2010)

    817 S.W.2d 299, 306 (Tenn. 1991), abrogated by State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tenn. 1997), as recognized by State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438, 443 (Tenn. 2008). In place of Anthony's "essentially incidental" analysis, the supreme court formulated a two-prong analysis to determine whether the evidence supported a separate conviction for kidnapping.

  4. Porter v. Genovese

    No. 16-5317 (6th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017)   Cited 54 times
    Recognizing circuit split in application of Martinez to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims

    In State v. Richardson, the Tennessee Supreme Court clarified that this two-prong test "fully replace[d] the Anthony 'essentially incidental' analysis," and that "[t]he Dixon test should be used exclusively in all future inquiries." 251 S.W.3d 438, 443 (Tenn. 2008). This was short-lived.

  5. Porter v. Johnson

    Case No. 3:14-cv-01798 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 16, 2016)

    Id. The Tennessee Supreme Court reaffirmed the Dixon test in State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2008), not long before the petitioner's conviction. The petitioner's Claim 27, as originally articulated, is premised on trial counsel's failure to request a Dixon due-process analysis in the trial (or appellate) court.

  6. State v. Shelby

    No. M2006-02582-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Upholding especially aggravated kidnapping conviction where the victim was detained and fought the defendant in her home for eight to ten minutes before escaping and where the accompanying felony was burglary

    1997). The supreme court stated that although it adheres to the due process principles articulated in Anthony, the two-part test announced in Dixon replaced Anthony's "essentially incidental" analysis.State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438, 442-43 443 n. 5 (Tenn. 2008). "The Dixon test `provides the structure necessary for applying the principles announced in Anthony.'"

  7. Richardson v. State

    No. M2009-01542-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 28, 2011)

    The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstated the convictions. State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438 (Tenn. 2008). II. Trial

  8. State v. Clemmons

    No. E2008-01326-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 12, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    The supreme court stated that although it adheres to the due process principles articulated in Anthony, the two-part test announced inDixon replaced Anthony's "essentially incidental" analysis. State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438, 442-43 443 n. 5 (Tenn. 2008). "The Dixon test `provides the structure necessary for applying the principles announced in Anthony.'"

  9. State v. Teats

    468 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2015)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that White is not applicable to a kidnapping charge when a defendant is charged with kidnapping one victim and robbing another

    957 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tenn.1997). Under Dixon, the inquiry became (1) whether the movement or confinement of the victim was beyond that necessary to consummate the accompanying crime; and (2) whether the additional movement or confinement prevented the victim from summoning help, lessened the defendant's risk of detection, or created a significant danger or increased the victim's risk of harm.Id.; see also State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438, 442–43 (Tenn.2008) (recognizing that the Dixon test replaced the Anthony “essentially incidental” analysis). Under this framework, the jury's role was limited to determining whether the State had proven the elements of kidnapping and the accompanying felony beyond a reasonable doubt.

  10. Fielder v. State

    No. W2013-02252-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2014)

    The Dixon test should be used exclusively in all future inquiries.State v. Richardson, 251 S.W.3d 438, 442-43 (Tenn. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Applying the Dixon test to the instant case, we must first determine whether the victim's movement or confinement was beyond that necessary to consummate the especially aggravated robbery. Especially aggravated robbery is the intentional or knowing theft of property from a person, accomplished with a deadly weapon where the victim suffers serious bodily injury. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-401, -403.