Case Citator › State v. Odom

State v. Odom

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
928 S.W.2d 18
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2009
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. State v. Odom was criticized for its name for mitigating evidence covered by a statutory catch-all provision. That narrow criticism is listed below.
More on how this was screened

All 37 flagged citations have been read; later courts continue to use Odom’s standard for reviewing suppression rulings. In State v. Hall, the Tennessee Supreme Court described a 1997 amendment deleting a sentence Odom had construed, but decided the case on harmless-error grounds without deciding the amendment's effect on Odom.

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. Odom; 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. Odom?

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

Criticized

  • The Tennessee Supreme Court called Odom’s “non-statutory” label for mitigating factors under the statute’s catch-all provision a misnomer and adopted “unspecified mitigating factors” instead.

    State v. Kiser · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed

    This Court has referred to mitigating factors other than those explicitly defined as "non-statulory” mitigating factors. See, e.g., Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 31. This is a misnomer, as the catch-all provision is part of the statute. We will hereafter refer to those mitigating factors that fall within the "catch-all” provision as "unspecified mitigating factors.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Odom 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