Legal Opinion

State v. Danny Spradlin

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 2000No. E1995-00019-SC-R11-CDPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, Jr., Justice.

I

We accepted review of this case in order to determine whether an agreement not to prosecute made between Danny Spradlin, the appellant, and two officers 1 is enforceable without the district attorney general’s 2 knowledge or approval. We conclude that a district attorney general has the sole duty, authority, and discretion to prosecute criminal matters in the State of Tennessee. 3 Police officers are, therefore, without authority to bind the district attorney general to an agreement not to prosecute. In this case, because the district attorney general…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. OdomTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Commonwealth v. StipetichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. State v. HowingtonTennessee Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Tabor v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  5. People v. GallegoMichigan Supreme Court · 1988

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. HarrisTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Friends of George's, Inc. v. Steven MulroyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2024
  3. State v. SiliskiCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2007
  4. State v. RalstonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2010
  5. David G. Housler, Jr. v. State of TennesseeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2013

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API