Legal Opinion

State v. Hill

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1997PublishedCited by 355 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BIRCH, Justice.

We accepted the State’s application for review in this cause in order to determine the validity of an indictment which charged aggravated rape. 1 The Court of Criminal Appeals held the indictment void and the subsequent conviction invalid because the language of the indictment failed to allege a culpable mental state. 2

This issue arises because the Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 provides that a culpable mental state is required to establish an offense unless the definition of the offense “plainly dispenses with a mental element.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-ll-301(b)(1991).…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. DavisTennessee Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. ByrdTennessee Supreme Court · 1991
  3. United States v. Thomas J. PurvisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  4. Parsons v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1951
  5. State v. SmithCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1980

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

3Cited by355 opinions

  1. Wyatt v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Ruff v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Hart v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Dykes v. ComptonTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. VannTennessee Supreme Court · 1998

350 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