Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 2/13/1996

State v. Brewer

Citations

932 S.W.2d 1
1996 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 96

How courts have described this case

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

holding that as a general rule, “in the absence of an objection or a special request, a defendant may not later raise an issue regarding an omission in the court’s charge”
concluding that a bifurcated trial was not mandatory in a securities fraud case
holding that a mistrial was not required after a witness made a statement that the Defendant had been bankrupt, even though there had been a pretrial order that the defendant’s bankruptcy was not to be mentioned at trial
finding an intent to deceive, in part, when the defendant used the victim’s money to pay for items not part of the agreement
upholding conviction for theft by false pretense where defendant, as part of investment scheme, told stories of successful ventures in other states but failed to disclose the legal difficulties he encountered
“[E]vidence was relevant to show that the appellants had guilty knowledge that the interests they were selling were securities.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scott, Summers, Tipton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

353 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

118 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Brewer

172 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.