Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 5/8/2001

State v. Conway

Citations

77 S.W.3d 213
2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 336
2001 WL 487689

How courts have described this case

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

holding that rebuttable presumption statute “has no application to a prosecution for DUI per se”
concluding that recusal not required when nothing more was shown than that the trial judge had previously prosecuted a defendant on an unrelated case
concluding that recusal not required when nothing more was shown than that the trial judge had previously prosecuted a defendant on an unrelated case
holding the trial judge was not required to recuse himself when he was a prosecutor in the defendant’s prior conviction and that conviction was used to enhance the defendant’s current conviction
stating that recusal was not required when “judge was involved in a prior concluded trial as a prosecutor, and the judge was not a material witness to any disputed facts concerning the prior conviction”
stating that the custodian of records “was unsure of the person who made the entry and whether that person had a business duty to do so. Thus, the entry does not qualify under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(6) as a business record.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Joe G. Riley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases with this name

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.