Legal Opinion

State v. Burkhart

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1976PublishedCited by 93 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HENRY, Justice.

We granted certiorari in this criminal action in order to examine the constitutional right of a criminal defendant, who is represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses and to argue his own case.1

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction for first degree burglary, and awarded a new trial, upon the authority of Wilson v. State, 50 Tenn. 232 (1871) and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

I

A proper construction of the Federal and State constitutional provisions is dependent upon an understanding of the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Baxter v. RoseTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Ferguson v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. United States v. Robert Neil Conder, United States of America v. Bernard Joseph Grogan, United States of America v. William Moore PegramCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
  5. United States v. Raphael PlattnerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964

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

3Cited by93 opinions

  1. Momon v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State v. HesterTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. MelsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Williams v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Artis Whitehead v. State of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2013

88 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