Case Citator › State v. Middlebrooks

State v. Middlebrooks

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
840 S.W.2d 317
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2001
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. State v. Middlebrooks held that Tennessee could not use a felony murder aggravating circumstance that duplicated the elements of felony murder. A 1995 amendment removed that duplication for later cases; the confirmed statutory treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

Middlebrooks's other holdings remain in use. All 37 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.

37 later cases cite State v. Middlebrooks; 37 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. Middlebrooks?

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Superseded by statute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 1995 amendment to Tennessee's felony murder aggravator removed the duplication that made the earlier aggravator unconstitutional under Middlebrooks.

    State v. Stout · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed

    In short, the present statutory scheme eliminates the duplication that was at issue in Middlebrooks and thus achieves the constitutionally required narrowing of death-eligible offenders convicted of felony murder. We therefore hold that the jury’s application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(7) (Supp.1995) was constitutionally proper and appropriate under the facts of this case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Middlebrooks 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