Case Citator › State v. White

State v. White

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
362 S.W.3d 559
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
59 of 59
Citing cases (total)
59
Treatment dates
2014–2015
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 59 flagged citations have been read. State v. White remains binding, but State v. Alston declines to extend its jury instruction to kidnapping accompanied only by aggravated burglary, and State v. Teats holds the instruction unnecessary when kidnapping and robbery involve different victims.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed limitations are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

59 later cases cite State v. White; 59 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. White?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court confined White’s expanded kidnapping instruction to dual offenses against the same victim and held it unnecessary where the robbery and kidnapping charges involved different victims.

    State of Tennessee v. Teats · Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · filed

    As the logical correlate of our conclusion about the limits of the Defendant’s due process protections, we hold that the Defendant in this case was not entitled to the White instruction.10 We read White as requiring the expanded kidnapping instruction only when the jury is required to determine whether the defendant committed dual offenses of kidnapping and an accompanying crime for which some measure of detention was necessary against the same victim.11 In the instant case, the jury was not asked to make this determination. Because the State did not seek dual convictions as to any single victim, the trial court did not err in failing to include the White instruction12 in its charge to the jury.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court confined White’s expanded jury instruction to kidnapping or false imprisonment accompanied by an offense against the same victim, holding it unnecessary where the false-imprisonment and robbery victims differed.

    State of Tennessee v. Holman · Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · filed

    The Williams majority “read White as requiring the expanded kidnapping charge only when the jury is required to determine whether the defendant committed dual offenses of kidnapping and an accompanying crime for which some measure of detention was necessary against the same victim.” Id. at *24-25. We are persuaded the conclusion reached was the correct one and conduct our review of the defendant’s conviction within those parameters.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court of Tennessee declined to extend White's jury-instruction requirement to kidnapping accompanied only by aggravated burglary.

    State of Tennessee v. Larry Jereller Alston, Kris Theotis Young, and Joshua Edward Webb · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed

    We hold that a kidnapping charge accompanied by an aggravated burglary charge, standing alone, does not warrant a White instruction. In Anthony, the rationale underlying this Court’s due process concern was that, inherent to certain offenses, such as robbery, rape, and assault, there exists a period of confinement of a victim that might also satisfy the elements of kidnapping. White, 362 S.W.3d at 578; Anthony, 817 S.W.2d at 305. This same period of confinement is not inherent to the offense of aggravated burglary, which is only an offense against property. As such, the concerns that are implicated when kidnapping is charged along with the offenses of robbery, rape, and assault, which are crimes against persons, are not implicated when a defendant is charged with kidnapping along with the offense of aggravated burglary. There is no danger that the kidnapping statute “could literally overrun” the crime of aggravated burglary, see Anthony, 817 S.W.2d at 303, and we decline to extend the instructional requirements of White when kidnapping and aggravated burglary are charged.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Tennessee Supreme Court limited White’s jury-instruction requirement to exclude cases charging kidnapping and robbery of different victims.

    State of Tennessee v. Teats · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed

    However, this is our first opportunity to consider whether the White jury instruction is required when a kidnapping charge and an accompanying robbery charge involve different victims. ... We hold that a White jury instruction is not required when a defendant is charged with the kidnapping and robbery of different victims. The jury instruction we articulated in White was intended to address the due process concerns that arise when a defendant is charged with kidnapping a victim and other crimes, such as robbery, rape, or assault, that involve some inherent confinement of that victim.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. White and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace