Case Citator › State v. Rice

State v. Rice

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
184 S.W.3d 646
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
61 of 61
Citing cases (total)
61
Treatment dates
2021
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Rice has been overruled in part on the standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence; all 61 flagged citations have been read. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that Dorantes replaced the stricter standard Rice had used and that identity cases receive the same sufficiency review as other cases.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed adverse decision is listed below. Later courts continue to cite Rice's other rules, including the jury's role in weighing evidence.

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.

61 later cases cite State v. Rice; 61 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. Rice?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Tennessee Supreme Court held that Dorantes replaced the stricter circumstantial-evidence standard Rice had used and rejected an exception that would preserve it for identity cases.

    State of Tennessee v. Urshawn Eric Miller · Tennessee Supreme Court · filed

    Dorantes replaced the standard previously applied in circumstantial evidence cases that required the facts to be “so clearly interwoven and connected that the finger of guilt is pointed unerringly at the Defendant and the Defendant alone.” Rice, 184 S.W.3d at 662 (quoting Reid, 91 S.W.3d at 277). Our Court of Criminal Appeals properly rejected a defendant’s invitation to carve out an exception to Dorantes to retain the former circumstantial evidence standard of review in identity cases.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Rice 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