State v. Dishman

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that it was harmless error when a witness, after having her recollection refreshed with a writing, retained this writing and continued to testify from it
• concluding that error existed because the witness, after having her recollection refreshed with a writing, retained the writing and continued to testify from it, but concluding that the error was harmless
• suggesting that there is no conviction within the meaning of Rule 609 when pretrial diversion is granted
• first citing State v. Fowler, 373 S.W.2d 460, 466 (Tenn. 1963); and then citing Johnson, 670 S.W.2d at 636
• first citing Coffee v. State, 216 S.W.2d 702, 703 (1948); and then citing Davis v. State, 212 S.W.2d 374, 375 (1948)
• “Because they were not taken back, there appears to have been error by the manner in which the log entries were used [to refresh the witness‟s memory]. We believe, however, any error was clearly harmless in the context of the entire record.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).