State of Tennessee v. Jereme Dannuel Little

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing “that the holding in Holman represent[ed] a minority rule among the states” but chosing “not to revisit Holman until the issue [wa]s squarely before [the Court]”
• noting that limiting instruction regarding proof of prior bad acts would have been preferable but that the court was not under obligation to give it sua sponte
• “Moreover, this Court has expanded the list of exceptions to include a limited amount of other crimes evidence when necessary to provide a ‘contextual background.’”
• “Moreover, this Court has expanded the list of exceptions to include a limited amount of other crimes evidence -14- when necessary to provide a „contextual background.‟”
• evidence sufficient to support conviction because even if the jury concluded that the defendant did not physically participate in crime, testimony established he was present and encouraged commission of the crime
• “The standard by which the trial court determines a motion for a judgment of acquittal is, in essence, the same standard that applies on appeal in determining the sufficiency of the evidence after a conviction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).