Case Citator › State v. Stout

State v. Stout

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
46 S.W.3d 689
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
39 of 39
Citing cases (total)
39
Treatment dates
2004
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. State v. Stout was superseded by statute on one capital sentencing evidence rule; the confirmed treatment is listed below. Tennessee's 1998 amendment requires admission of facts underlying a prior violent felony conviction in sentencing proceedings for offenses committed after the amendment.
More on how this was screened

Stout's other holdings remain in use. All 39 flagged citations have been read.

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.

39 later cases cite State v. Stout; 39 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. Stout?

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

Superseded by statute

  • The 1998 amendment to Tennessee's capital sentencing statute displaced Stout's rule excluding facts underlying a prior violent felony conviction when the conviction itself established violence.

    State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom, a/k/a Otis Smith · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed

    When this pre-1998 version of the statute was applied to capital sentencing proceedings at which the State relied on the “prior violent felony” aggravating circumstance in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(2), this Court consistently held that it was “not appropriate to admit evidence regarding specific facts of the crime resulting in the previous conviction, when the conviction on its face shows that it involved violence or the threat of violence to the person.” State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 811 (Tenn. 1994); see also State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 701 (Tenn. 2001). In contrast, the 1998 amendment now mandates that such evidence is admissible and must be considered in determining the weight of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(2).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Stout 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