Tennessee's rule on evidence law turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Tennessee evidence practice is organized under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at Tenn. R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at Tenn. R. Evid. 801, 802. The controlling authority is Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Authenticity is a separate fight under Tenn. R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: Tenn. R. Civ. P. 32 governs civil deposition use at trial. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when unavailability is shown.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
Worked example under Tennessee law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Tennessee. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
A lawyer in Tennessee wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Tenn. R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Tenn. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in Tenn. R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Tenn. R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in Tenn. R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under Tenn. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Tennessee keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
General standards of admissibility
Tennessee starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Tenn. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Tennessee publishes commentaries to its evidence rules. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b) governs other crimes, wrongs, or acts with Tennessee-specific case law.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Tennessee is governed by Tenn. R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Tennessee character-evidence opinions
STATE of Tennessee v. Fred Chad CLARK, II
STATE of Tennessee v. Fred Chad CLARK, II, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 913 (2014)
…d at 377. In this case, Mr. Clark proposed to offer his own character evidence through Dr. Walker, and the State petitioned to use the pornography evidence to “rebut” that evidence. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) permits a defendant to offer character evidence, but then authorizes the prosecution to offer its own evidence of the defendant’s character “to rebut” the defendant’s charac…
On character evidence, STATE of Tennessee v. Fred Chad CLARK, II speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "In this case, Mr. Clark proposed to offer his own character evidence through Dr. Walker, and the State petitioned to use the pornography evidence to “rebut” that evidence. Tenn. R. Evid." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Tennessee v. Amos Curtis COPENNY
STATE of Tennessee v. Amos Curtis COPENNY, 1993 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 401 (1993)
…are not entirely persuaded that Ms. Hughley’s testimony is character evidence, we believe the state’s argument rests, at least in part, on Rule 404(a)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. This rule is an exception to the general rule that evidence of a person’s character or trait of character is not admissible to prove action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.…
STATE of Tennessee v. Amos Curtis COPENNY is worth reading on Tennessee character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "Ms. Hughley’s testimony is character evidence, we believe the state’s argument rests, at least in part, on Rule 404(a)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Tennessee v. Lamont Johnson
State of Tennessee v. Lamont Johnson (2013)
…ng societal interests support the exclusion of this type of character evidence when nothing in the record might suggest that the defendant’s son actually committed the crime. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of these witnesses did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.…
Tennessee opinions such as State of Tennessee v. Lamont Johnson are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Consequently, the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of these witnesses did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State of Tennessee v. Davidson M. Taylor
State of Tennessee v. Davidson M. Taylor (2007)
…this case, it was the Appellant who introduced the issue of character evidence at trial, and, clearly evidence challenging the character trait is not “testimonial” within the meaning of Crawford. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). Second, the Appellant contends that the trial court failed to “consider that the real issue was the expungement of the…
Practitioners open State of Tennessee v. Davidson M. Taylor when Tennessee character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Appellant who introduced the issue of character evidence at trial, and, clearly evidence challenging the character trait is not “testimonial” within the meaning of Crawford. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Tennessee v. Orlando Crayton
State of Tennessee v. Orlando Crayton (2001)
…ndant first asserts that the trial court erred by admitting character evidence concerning his gang affiliation. In particular, he maintains that he was prejudiced by testimony that he had put "a hit out" on the victim because he was a "vice lord." Rule 404 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of character evidence. Although the rule is usually applied to…
State of Tennessee v. Orlando Crayton is worth reading on Tennessee character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "In particular, he maintains that he was prejudiced by testimony that he had put 'a hit out' on the victim because he was a 'vice lord.' Rule 404 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of character evidence." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Tennessee v. Mickey Lee Williams
State of Tennessee v. Mickey Lee Williams (2014)
…e of his own character and that the prosecution may present character evidence to rebut that presented by the accused. In addition, if an accused offers evidence under Rule 404(a)(2) regarding the character of the victim, the prosecution may present evidence that the accused had the same character trait as the victim. See Tenn. R. Evid. 404(a)(1). Thus, when a defendant raises…
Practitioners open State of Tennessee v. Mickey Lee Williams when Tennessee character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "In addition, if an accused offers evidence under Rule 404(a)(2) regarding the character of the victim, the prosecution may present evidence that the accused had the same character trait as the victim. See Tenn. R. Evid. 404(a)(1)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer (2003)
…le of Evidence 404(a), which addresses the admissibility of character evidence, provides: (a) . . . Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity with the character or trait on a particular occasion, except: (1) . . . Evidence of a pertinent character trait offered by the accused or by the prosecution…
Practitioners open State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer when Tennessee character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Evidence 404(a), which addresses the admissibility of character evidence, provides: (a) . . ." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Tennessee v. William Jason Harris
State of Tennessee v. William Jason Harris (2015)
…However, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1) provides: (a) Character Evidence Generally - Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (1) Character of Accused - In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused or by the…
Tennessee opinions such as State of Tennessee v. William Jason Harris are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "However, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1) provides: (a) Character Evidence Generally - Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (1) Character of Accus" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Tennessee are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Tenn. R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Tennessee hearsay opinions
Dennis PYLANT v. STATE of Tennessee
Dennis PYLANT v. STATE of Tennessee, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 626 (2008)
…t trial. The post-conviction court struck this testimony as hearsay and denied Petitioner’s claim for relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court. We hold that the post-conviction court erred in striking the proffered testimony as hearsay. We also hold that, because the post-conviction court made no credibility findings with respect to the proffered…
Tennessee opinions such as Dennis PYLANT v. STATE of Tennessee are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "The post-conviction court struck this testimony as hearsay and denied Petitioner’s claim for relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court. We hold that the post-conviction court erred in striking the proffered testimony as hearsay." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Tennessee v. Sabrina Renee LEWIS
STATE of Tennessee v. Sabrina Renee LEWIS, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 649 (2007)
…nary determination.” Id. at 59. “[Wjhether the admission of hearsay statements violated a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause,” however, “is purely a question of law.” State v. Maclin, 183 S.W.3d 335, 342 (Tenn.2006) (citing Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 125, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d *142 117 (1999)). “The application of the law to the facts found by the tri…
STATE of Tennessee v. Sabrina Renee LEWIS is worth reading on Tennessee hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Id. at 59. “[Wjhether the admission of hearsay statements violated a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause,” however, “is purely a question of law.” State v. Maclin, 183 S.W.3d 335, 342 (Tenn.2006) (citing Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 125, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Tennessee v. Samuel D. LAND
STATE of Tennessee v. Samuel D. LAND, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 369 (2000)
…nvicting offense. After review, we find one issue regarding hearsay evidence meritorious. We conclude, however, that this error is harmless. Furthermore, we find that no other error of law requiring reversal exists. We affirm the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. The appellant, Samuel D. Land, was charged by presentment with theft over $10,000, driving under t…
Practitioners open STATE of Tennessee v. Samuel D. LAND when Tennessee hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "After review, we find one issue regarding hearsay evidence meritorious. We conclude, however, that this error is harmless. Furthermore, we find that no other error of law requiring reversal exists. We affirm the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Howard BROWN, Appellant — Holder, J., dissenting
…d attempted to “back door” the information via inadmissible hearsay testimony. I depart from the majority’s opinion allowing the introduction of the inadmissible hearsay as substantive evidence in lieu of admissible testimony from the declarant who was present at trial to testify. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the United States Supreme Court decisions, Green v.…
On hearsay, STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Howard BROWN, Appellant — Holder, J., dissenting speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "I depart from the majority’s opinion allowing the introduction of the inadmissible hearsay as substantive evidence in lieu of admissible testimony from the declarant who was present at trial to testify." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Tommy Joe WALKER, Appellant — Reid, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
…re not admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the error in admitting the co-defendants’ *401statements was harmless error. I also disagree with the view expressed in the concurring opinion that review pursuant to Rule 52(b), Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, is precluded. I would reverse the convicti…
Practitioners open STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Tommy Joe WALKER, Appellant — Reid, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part when Tennessee hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the error in admitting the co-defendants’ *401statements was harmless error. I also disagree with the view expressed in the concurring opinion that review pursuant to Rule 52(b), Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, is precluded." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Howard Brown
…d attempted to “back door” the information via inadmissible hearsay testimony. I depart from the majority’s opinion allowing the introduction of the inadmissible hearsay as substantive evidence in lieu of admissible testimony from the declarant who was present at trial to testify. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the United States Supreme Court decisions, Green v.…
Tennessee opinions such as State v. Howard Brown are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "I depart from the majority’s opinion allowing the introduction of the inadmissible hearsay as substantive evidence in lieu of admissible testimony from the declarant who was present at trial to testify." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Tennessee treats them under Tenn. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Tennessee party-admission opinions
George A. RUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee; Billy Joe SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee
…ts made to her by the victim was inadmissible. We find that admission of these hearsay statements was error. However, in light of the strength of the State’s proof, this error does not appear to have affirmatively affected the result of the trial. Smith challenges the trial court’s denial of a motion requesting an ex parte hearing to establish his particularized need for access…
Practitioners open George A. RUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee; Billy Joe SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee when Tennessee party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We find that admission of these hearsay statements was error. However, in light of the strength of the State’s proof, this error does not appear to have affirmatively affected the result of the trial." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Howard BROWN, Appellant — Holder, J., dissenting
…ablished evidentiary procedures that were a prerequisite to admission of the desired hearsay testimony. See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996) (“Relevant evidence may ... be excluded on account of a defendant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements.”); see also Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1…
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Howard BROWN, Appellant — Holder, J., dissenting is worth reading on Tennessee party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996) (“Relevant evidence may ... be excluded on account of a defendant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements.”); see also Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 114 L.Ed." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Tennessee v. Marlo DAVIS
STATE of Tennessee v. Marlo DAVIS, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 463 (2015)
…tle the Defendant to relief. We hold that the trial court’s admission of the testifying witness’ prior statement and preliminary hearing testimony was not reversible error and that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions. We also reject the Defendant’s argument that the jury’s inconsistent verdicts entitle him to relief. Accordingly, we affirm the tri…
On party admissions, STATE of Tennessee v. Marlo DAVIS speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "Defendant to relief. We hold that the trial court’s admission of the testifying witness’ prior statement and preliminary hearing testimony was not reversible error and that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Robert Lee PANKOW, Individually and as Guardian for Robert Lynn Pankow, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Bobby MITCHELL
…complaint or its contents. II. Allegations in Pleadings as Admissions An admission is an oral or written extrajudicial declaration made by or attributable to a party. Jones v. Lenoir City Car Works, 216 Tenn. 351, 356, 392 S.W.2d 671, 673 (1965). It is admissible against the party making it both as substantive evidence and for the purpose of impeachment. Goodman v. Balthrop Co…
Practitioners open Robert Lee PANKOW, Individually and as Guardian for Robert Lynn Pankow, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Bobby MITCHELL when Tennessee party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "II. Allegations in Pleadings as Admissions An admission is an oral or written extrajudicial declaration made by or attributable to a party. Jones v. Lenoir City Car Works, 216 Tenn. 351, 356, 392 S.W.2d 671, 673 (1965)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Tennessee v. Robert Charles BROWN
STATE of Tennessee v. Robert Charles BROWN, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 897 (2011)
…ent was hearsay, then it was not admissible under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule because it was not an admission of culpability or criminal activity. Finally, the appellant argues that the statement was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The State argues that the appellant’s statement was hearsay and admissible under the party admission exception to the hears…
Tennessee opinions such as STATE of Tennessee v. Robert Charles BROWN are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Finally, the appellant argues that the statement was irrelevant and highly prejudicial." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Howard Brown
…ablished evidentiary procedures that were a prerequisite to admission of the desired hearsay testimony. See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42 (1996) (“Relevant evidence may . . . be excluded on account of a defendant's failure to comply with procedural requirements.”); see also Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) (preclusion of evidence concerning the defendant's past sex…
State v. Howard Brown is worth reading on Tennessee party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42 (1996) (“Relevant evidence may . . . be excluded on account of a defendant's failure to comply with procedural requirements.”); see also Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Austin
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Austin (2000)
…ortions of appellant’s statement to the police prior to its admission; and (3) contemporaneously instruct the jury regarding prior inconsistent statements. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND On the afternoon of October 28, 1996, Tony Price drove his friend Michael Ryan to the grocery store and the liquor store. The two men returned to Ry…
Practitioners open State of Tennessee v. Gregory Austin when Tennessee party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND On the afternoon of October 28, 1996, Tony Price drove his friend Michael Ryan to the grocery store and the liquor store." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Business records
The business-records exception under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Tennessee business-records opinions
Alisia ARIAS v. DURO STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY Et Al.
Alisia ARIAS v. DURO STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY Et Al., 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (2010)
…s of regularly conducted activity, often referred to as the business records exception. To establish that the report satisfied the requirements of this hearsay exception, Ms. Arias offered the deposition testimony of Jennifer Aycock, who had worked as Dr. Thurman’s medical assistant. Ms. Aycock testified that Dr. Thurman was a licensed physician who specialized in pulmonary med…
Alisia ARIAS v. DURO STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY Et Al. is worth reading on Tennessee business records because the court put the point in its own words: "To establish that the report satisfied the requirements of this hearsay exception, Ms. Arias offered the deposition testimony of Jennifer Aycock, who had worked as Dr. Thurman’s medical assistant. Ms. Aycock testified that Dr." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Kenneth F. KANIPES v. NORTH AMERICAN PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
…was authenticated by T.C.A. § 47-1-202; the document was a business record, within the hearsay exception of The Business Record Act, T.C.A. § 24-7-111; and the handwritten notations must have been made by a Next Day Delivery Service employee who was under a business duty to record problems with the load. Plaintiff counters the bill of lading is, itself, inadmissible because th…
On business records, Kenneth F. KANIPES v. NORTH AMERICAN PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "T.C.A. § 47-1-202; the document was a business record, within the hearsay exception of The Business Record Act, T.C.A." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
LVNV Funding, LLC as Assignee of Sears Gold Mastercard v. Kevin Mastaw
LVNV Funding, LLC as Assignee of Sears Gold Mastercard v. Kevin Mastaw (2012)
…us owner of the debt, pursuant to the hearsay exception for business records under Tenn. R. Evid. Rule 803(6). We hold that two of the exhibits were not appropriately admitted into evidence under the business records exception. Without those exhibits, we find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s judgment in favor of the creditor, and reverse. Tenn. R. App.…
On business records, LVNV Funding, LLC as Assignee of Sears Gold Mastercard v. Kevin Mastaw speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "Tenn. R. Evid. Rule 803(6). We hold that two of the exhibits were not appropriately admitted into evidence under the business records exception. Without those exhibits, we find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s judgment in favor of the creditor, and reverse." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Tennessee v. Jamal P. Hicks
State of Tennessee v. Jamal P. Hicks (2018)
…arsay. Counsel for Defendant argued that the document was a business record that was not self-authenticating and the document was not being entered into evidence via a custodian of records and, therefore, it was inadmissible hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection. The document was entered into evidence as Exhibit 5. Agent Will Evans of the Clarksville Police Departmen…
Tennessee opinions such as State of Tennessee v. Jamal P. Hicks are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Counsel for Defendant argued that the document was a business record that was not self-authenticating and the document was not being entered into evidence via a custodian of records and, therefore, it was inadmissible hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Evelyn Campbell, a/k.a Elvin Campbell, Erma Dorton and Edria Humphrey v. Union Planters Bank , Formerly Commerce
…sustaining an objection to the bank’s attempt to offer its business records in evidence. The bank has appealed, and we reverse and remand for a new trial. Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed. HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., and CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR. J., joined. H. Sco…
Evelyn Campbell, a/k.a Elvin Campbell, Erma Dorton and Edria Humphrey v. Union Planters Bank , Formerly Commerce is worth reading on Tennessee business records because the court put the point in its own words: "The bank has appealed, and we reverse and remand for a new trial. Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed. HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., and CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR. J." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Bowlin v. Bowlin
…lso laid a proper foundation to qualify Mother’s records as business records under Rule 803(6), Tenn.R.Evid. 4 And this is not a business record in the traditional sense. And if the Court were to allow these records to be used in any way whatsoever, here, today, it would deny me the right to cross-examine the person who actually wrote down the information. The trial court overr…
Practitioners open Bowlin v. Bowlin when Tennessee business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Mother’s records as business records under Rule 803(6), Tenn.R.Evid. 4 And this is not a business record in the traditional sense." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Tennessee v. Vernon DeWayne Waller
State of Tennessee v. Vernon DeWayne Waller (2002)
…hearsay but, nonetheless, found the report admissible as a business record of the TBI. The Appellant excepts to this ruling specifically arguing that “because the report was prepared solely for the purpose of litigation (albeit in another case), its reliability is suspect just as if it had been prepared for a trial in this case.” Rule 803(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence…
Tennessee opinions such as State of Tennessee v. Vernon DeWayne Waller are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "TBI. The Appellant excepts to this ruling specifically arguing that “because the report was prepared solely for the purpose of litigation (albeit in another case), its reliability is suspect just as if it had been prepared for a trial in this case." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State of Tennessee v. Cory Austin Edison
State of Tennessee v. Cory Austin Edison (2014)
…ral manager at Thornton’s gas station, he had access to the business records; that those business records, including transactions and video surveillance, were kept in the ordinary course of business; that he was familiar with the surveillance system; that he had reviewed and initialed the video surveillance from Thornton’s prior to it being presented at trial; and that there di…
On business records, State of Tennessee v. Cory Austin Edison speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "ral manager at Thornton’s gas station, he had access to the business records; that those business records, including transactions and video surveillance, were kept in the ordinary course of business; that he was familiar with the surveillance system; that he had reviewed and init" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Tennessee trial practice.
Excited utterance — Tenn. R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Tenn. R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Tenn. R. Evid. 804(a), Tennessee opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Tennessee dying-declaration opinions
STATE of Tennessee v. Sabrina Renee LEWIS
STATE of Tennessee v. Sabrina Renee LEWIS, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 649 (2007)
…; (2) whether a statement by the victim was admissible as a dying declaration; and (3) whether expert testimony regarding DNA test results was admissible. Because the videotaped statement by the Defendant was properly allowed as an admission by a party opponent, because a testimonial dying declaration does not violate the right of confrontation under the federal or state consti…
Tennessee opinions such as STATE of Tennessee v. Sabrina Renee LEWIS are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "; (2) whether a statement by the victim was admissible as a dying declaration; and (3) whether expert testimony regarding DNA test results was admissible. Because the videotaped statement by the Defendant was properly allowed as an admission by a party opponent, because a testimo" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
J. P. Hawkins v. State of Tennessee
J. P. Hawkins v. State of Tennessee, 220 Tenn. 383 (1967)
…erred by allowing the State to introduce into evidence the dying declaration of the deceased. This declaration was made while the deceased was hospitalized and shortly before his death, and was admitted through the following examination of his wife, Mrs. Ford: “Q. If you will, Mrs. Ford, just tell the court and jury in your own words what was said and repeat the exact words th…
Practitioners open J. P. Hawkins v. State of Tennessee when Tennessee dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State to introduce into evidence the dying declaration of the deceased. This declaration was made while the deceased was hospitalized and shortly before his death, and was admitted through the following examination of his wife, Mrs. Ford: “Q. If you will, Mrs." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Green Pearson v. State
Green Pearson v. State, 143 Tenn. 385 (1920)
…the jury upon the subject of the weight to be given to the dying declaration of the deceased, which was admitted in evidence, is made the ground of another assignment of error. The trial judge made no reference in his charge to this subject, although he did give some general rules for the jury’s guidance, in weighing the testimony of witnesses introduced upon the trial. There…
Practitioners open Green Pearson v. State when Tennessee dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The trial judge made no reference in his charge to this subject, although he did give some general rules for the jury’s guidance, in weighing the testimony of witnesses introduced upon the trial." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Anthony Dickason v. State
Anthony Dickason v. State, 139 Tenn. 601 (1918)
…ement of Granderson, made just prior to his death, as *604a dying declaration is vigorously assailed by counsel for plaintiff in error. Granderson was shot at close quarters, with a shotgun, in the abdomen. His wound was very large, of a desperate nature, and the intestines were exposed and protruded. He received this wound late in the evening and lived until the following day.…
On dying declaration, Anthony Dickason v. State speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "Granderson, made just prior to his death, as *604a dying declaration is vigorously assailed by counsel for plaintiff in error. Granderson was shot at close quarters, with a shotgun, in the abdomen." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Robert Jackson and Hobart Jackson v. the State
Robert Jackson and Hobart Jackson v. the State, 155 Tenn. 371 (1927)
…erable conflict in the testimony, and in this situation the dying declaration of the deceased, who lived about an hour became material. Mrs. Ed Smith testified that she asked deceased how it happened and that he said, “Oh, they stopped me and cut me to death.” Mrs. R. A. Smith gave the same testimony. Z. M. Zwald testified that when Mrs. Ed Smith asked deceased how it happened…
Tennessee opinions such as Robert Jackson and Hobart Jackson v. the State are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Mrs. Ed Smith testified that she asked deceased how it happened and that he said, “Oh, they stopped me and cut me to death.” Mrs. R. A. Smith gave the same testimony. Z. M. Zwald testified that when Mrs." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
W. A. Crittendon v. the State
W. A. Crittendon v. the State, 157 Tenn. 403 (1928)
…with a statement of the deceased, offered in evidence as a dying declaration. There is little or no conflict between Milton Critten-don and the plaintiff in error, except with reference to the actual striking of the blows. The plaintiff in error admitted that he asked the deceased: “What made you do what you did over at Union City?” and that the deceased made no reply. ITe tes…
Tennessee opinions such as W. A. Crittendon v. the State are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "There is little or no conflict between Milton Critten-don and the plaintiff in error, except with reference to the actual striking of the blows. The plaintiff in error admitted that he asked the deceased: “What made you do what you did over at Union City?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Jim Baxter v. State
Jim Baxter v. State, 83 Tenn. 657 (1885)
…ith, Peck, 131; 13 Lea, 258. It is also objected that the “ dying declarations ” •of deceased were improperly admitted. The deceased was a feeble old lady, and at the time of the fatal ■assault, between 8 and 9 o’clock at night, was alone, •at her home in Lebanon. She was stricken several ■blows on the head by a rock, weighing three or four pounds, held in the hand of her assai…
Tennessee opinions such as Jim Baxter v. State are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Peck, 131; 13 Lea, 258. It is also objected that the “ dying declarations ” •of deceased were improperly admitted. The deceased was a feeble old lady, and at the time of the fatal ■assault, between 8 and 9 o’clock at night, was alone, •at her home in Lebanon." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
John and Lacy Pennington v. State
John and Lacy Pennington v. State, 136 Tenn. 533 (1916)
…ence of a certain paper writing purporting to have been the dying declaration of Byrd. This writing is as follows: “April 13, 1915. “This is my statement given by my own words. I met Lacy Pennington and John Pennington. Lacy says ‘now you once had .the advantage of me, but now I want to talk to you; don’t you'move while I do,’ and I said, ‘you have me boys where I can’t help my…
Tennessee opinions such as John and Lacy Pennington v. State are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Byrd. This writing is as follows: “April 13, 1915. “This is my statement given by my own words. I met Lacy Pennington and John Pennington. Lacy says ‘now you once had ." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Tennessee medical-statement opinions
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Joe Andre WILLIAMS, Appellant
…nce 803(4) provides that statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are *256 not excluded by the hearsay rule. The rule says that “Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment describing medical history; past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations; or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Joe Andre WILLIAMS, Appellant speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "nce 803(4) provides that statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are *256 not excluded by the hearsay rule. The rule says that “Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment describing medical history; past or present symptoms, pain, o" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Carl Lee McLEOD, Appellant; STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. James YOUNG, Appellant
…e have been satisfied. I Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(4). The exception provides: Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment describing medical history; past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations; or the inception or general character of the…
Practitioners open STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Carl Lee McLEOD, Appellant; STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. James YOUNG, Appellant when Tennessee medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "I Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(4)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Maurice GORDON, Appellant
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Maurice GORDON, Appellant, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 473 (1997)
…event or condition; and statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. The defendant was convicted of aggravated rape. • The trial court ruled that statements made by the victim to her mother were excited utterances and, therefore, admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(2). The trial court also ruled that the victim’s statements to a psychologist, which were…
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Maurice GORDON, Appellant is worth reading on Tennessee medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "The defendant was convicted of aggravated rape. • The trial court ruled that statements made by the victim to her mother were excited utterances and, therefore, admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(2)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellant, v. Jerrell C. LIVINGSTON; STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Steve BUNDY, Appellant
…rsay, for the admission of: Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment describing medical history; past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations; or the inception of general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis and treatment. Sara Hassell, M.D., a pediatric resident working at the Nashville General H…
Tennessee opinions such as STATE of Tennessee, Appellant, v. Jerrell C. LIVINGSTON; STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Steve BUNDY, Appellant are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment describing medical history; past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations; or the inception of general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis and treatment." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Johnny RUCKER, Appellant
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Johnny RUCKER, Appellant, 1992 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 628 (1992)
…696 S.W.2d at 539. III. Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Rule 803(4), Tenn.R.Evid., provides: Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment describing medical history; past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations; or the inception or general character of the cause or extern…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Johnny RUCKER, Appellant speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "S.W.2d at 539. III. Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Rule 803(4), Tenn.R.Evid." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Evans
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Evans (2007)
…testimony under the exceptions for excited utterances, and medical diagnosis and treatment. The defendant also contends that certain testimony violated her right to confrontation and that the evidence, as a whole, was insufficient to support the convictions. Upon review, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of t…
Tennessee opinions such as State of Tennessee v. Sandra Evans are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "The defendant also contends that certain testimony violated her right to confrontation and that the evidence, as a whole, was insufficient to support the convictions. Upon review, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Tenn. R. App. P." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State of Tennessee v. James Dickerson
State of Tennessee v. James Dickerson (2016)
…he hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. Again, we disagree. “„Hearsay‟ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Tenn. R. Evid. 801(c). “Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or otherwise…
State of Tennessee v. James Dickerson is worth reading on Tennessee medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Again, we disagree. “„Hearsay‟ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Tenn. R. Evid. 801(c)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Gatewood
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Gatewood (2018)
…that she obtained A.J.’s medical history for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment and that she did not conduct a forensic interview. She said the interview she obtained was “to assure the child is physically safe and that their body and self are safe.” She added that it was “important to get a history of what occurred in order to properly assess the child.” She said t…
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Gatewood is worth reading on Tennessee medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "A.J.’s medical history for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment and that she did not conduct a forensic interview. She said the interview she obtained was “to assure the child is physically safe and that their body and self are safe." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Use of depositions at trial
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 32 governs civil deposition use at trial. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when unavailability is shown.
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Tennessee deposition / former-testimony opinions
Margaret White and Murl WHITE, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. the VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, the Vanderbilt University D/B/A
…t erroneously prevented the patient from using at trial the depositions of one of the defendants’ designated expert witnesses. *220 I. Margaret White and her husband of almost fifty years live in Jackson, Tennessee. Mr. White is a retired railroad conductor, and Ms. White retired as a salesperson in 1983 to take care of her mother. Prior to the events giving rise to this lawsui…
Tennessee opinions such as Margaret White and Murl WHITE, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. the VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, the Vanderbilt University D/B/A are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "I. Margaret White and her husband of almost fifty years live in Jackson, Tennessee. Mr. White is a retired railroad conductor, and Ms. White retired as a salesperson in 1983 to take care of her mother." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Andrew CARTER v. QUALITY OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. Et Al.
Andrew CARTER v. QUALITY OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. Et Al., 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (2010)
…We hold that the physician’s unavailability to provide the deposition requested by the employer pursuant to section 50-6-235 renders the physician’s written report inadmissible. We further hold that the physician’s report is not admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804 as an exception to the hearsay rule. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand…
On deposition / former testimony, Andrew CARTER v. QUALITY OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. Et Al. speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "We hold that the physician’s unavailability to provide the deposition requested by the employer pursuant to section 50-6-235 renders the physician’s written report inadmissible." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
James DIAL, Et Al. v. Robert L. HARRINGTON, M.D., Et Al.
James DIAL, Et Al. v. Robert L. HARRINGTON, M.D., Et Al., 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 761 (2003)
…les of Civil Procedure prohibits use of an expert discovery deposition taken in accordance with Rule 26.02(4) to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. We reverse. In February 2001, James Dial and wife, Rachel Dial (collectively, “the Dials”) filed a complaint against Defendants Robert L. Harrington, M.D., Jackson…
James DIAL, Et Al. v. Robert L. HARRINGTON, M.D., Et Al. is worth reading on Tennessee deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Civil Procedure prohibits use of an expert discovery deposition taken in accordance with Rule 26.02(4) to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. We reverse." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Little & Dean v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
Little & Dean v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 3 Tenn. App. 157 (1926)
…he whole contract of said contractors.” It appears from the deposition of J. W. Leigh,- who was the bookkeeper for Little & Dean and who made up the general statement filed in the record as Exhibit “2” to his deposition, that the 10 per cent retainage is duly credited on the account, amounting to the sum of $5,514.09. This credit, as appears from the account filed in the record…
On deposition / former testimony, Little & Dean v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "It appears from the deposition of J. W. Leigh,- who was the bookkeeper for Little & Dean and who made up the general statement filed in the record as Exhibit “2” to his deposition, that the 10 per cent retainage is duly credited on the account, amounting to the sum of $5,514.09." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
DEPOSIT BANK OF MONROE COUNTY, KY., v. CHERRY Et Al.
DEPOSIT BANK OF MONROE COUNTY, KY., v. CHERRY Et Al., 20 Tenn. App. 305 (1936)
…e cause was heard by the chancellor upon the pleadings, the depositions and exhibits on file, and the oral testimony of witnesses introduced before the court. “All the evidence that was submitted to the court” (including certain stipulations of counsel for the parties) was preserved by bill of exceptions, and it is recited in the bill of exceptions that it was “agreed” that the…
On deposition / former testimony, DEPOSIT BANK OF MONROE COUNTY, KY., v. CHERRY Et Al. speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "e cause was heard by the chancellor upon the pleadings, the depositions and exhibits on file, and the oral testimony of witnesses introduced before the court. “All the evidence that was submitted to the court” (including certain stipulations of counsel for the parties) was preser" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Julia Wilkes v. Fred's, Inc.
Julia Wilkes v. Fred's, Inc. (2002)
…jury in March of 2001. At trial, Ms. Wilkes introduced the deposition of Mr. Lee Kyles, the manager on duty of Fred’s at the time of the accident, which was taken in May of 1999. Ms. Wilkes introduced the deposition for the purpose of authenticating the policies and procedures manual of Fred’s regarding the clean-up of spills and the accident report regarding Ms. Wilkes’ fall.…
Tennessee opinions such as Julia Wilkes v. Fred's, Inc. are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "March of 2001. At trial, Ms. Wilkes introduced the deposition of Mr. Lee Kyles, the manager on duty of Fred’s at the time of the accident, which was taken in May of 1999. Ms." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Amber L. Bilbrey v. Melissa Lynn Parks
Amber L. Bilbrey v. Melissa Lynn Parks (2014)
…peal are whether the trial court erred in admitting (1) the deposition testimony of Bilbrey’s boyfriend after the court found him “unavailable” because he was allegedly more than 100 miles from the courthouse, and (2) the testimony of a state trooper regarding the content of a voice message sent by Bilbrey to her boyfriend shortly before the accident. Finding no prejudicial err…
On deposition / former testimony, Amber L. Bilbrey v. Melissa Lynn Parks speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "Bilbrey’s boyfriend after the court found him “unavailable” because he was allegedly more than 100 miles from the courthouse, and (2) the testimony of a state trooper regarding the content of a voice message sent by Bilbrey to her boyfriend shortly before the accident." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Clark
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Clark (2013)
…trial court erred by admitting into evidence the videotaped deposition of a State’s witness in lieu of live testimony, that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of forensic testing conducted on the defendant’s shoes and clothing, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of first degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; J…
Practitioners open State of Tennessee v. Kevin Clark when Tennessee deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State’s witness in lieu of live testimony, that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of forensic testing conducted on the defendant’s shoes and clothing, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of first degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Tenn. R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Tennessee healthcare, country-music-industry contract, and DUI cases turn on authenticated medical records, royalty statements, and body-camera video under Tenn. R. Evid. 901–902.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Tennessee trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Tennessee trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Tennessee authenticity opinions
Mrs. Orfie Wilson, Widow of Charles Daniel Wilson, Deceased, Plaintiff-In-Error, v. Hubert Tranbarger, D/B/A
…used in the first trial and none of these exhibits had been authenticated by the trial judge and ordered filed as a part of the wayside bill of exceptions. The Court of Appeals sustained this motion and affirmed the action of the trial judge in granting a new trial. That Court then proceeded to consider the record and assignments of error at the second trial and affirmed the ju…
On authentication, Mrs. Orfie Wilson, Widow of Charles Daniel Wilson, Deceased, Plaintiff-In-Error, v. Hubert Tranbarger, D/B/A speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "The Court of Appeals sustained this motion and affirmed the action of the trial judge in granting a new trial." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Battier v. State
Battier v. State, 114 Tenn. 563 (1904)
…e bill of *566exceptions to be in any manner identified and authenticated by the trial judge as parts of it. This motion must be sustained. It is well settled that, in order to make extraneous matters a part of the record, they must be examined by the trial judge, and authenticated by his signature in such manner as to make their identity certain. In the case of Wynne et al. v.…
Battier v. State is worth reading on Tennessee authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "This motion must be sustained. It is well settled that, in order to make extraneous matters a part of the record, they must be examined by the trial judge, and authenticated by his signature in such manner as to make their identity certain. In the case of Wynne et al. v." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Noel Chico, Sammy Keatts, Willie Fox and William Keatts, Plaintiffs in Error, v. State of Tennessee, Defendant in Error
…ore than an exhibit and as such it has to be identified and authenticated by the signature of the trial judge. The search warrant *26 in this case is not a part of the bill of exceptions; it appears only on page 2 of the technical record. The hill of exceptions containing 27 pages was authenticated by the signature of the trial judge on the 2nd day of April, 1965, and filed on…
Noel Chico, Sammy Keatts, Willie Fox and William Keatts, Plaintiffs in Error, v. State of Tennessee, Defendant in Error is worth reading on Tennessee authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "The search warrant *26 in this case is not a part of the bill of exceptions; it appears only on page 2 of the technical record." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. Florence Marlin, by Next Friend and Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. John D. Marlin
…be copied into the bill of exceptions. They are- in no way authenticated by the signature of the judge. Their identification is left to the clerk, without any direction or guide to control him.” And this must be said and is true of the bill of exceptions in the present case. The certified copy which accompanies this motion shows it to be a skeleton bill, just as it was in the…
Practitioners open Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. Florence Marlin, by Next Friend and Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. John D. Marlin when Tennessee authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "They are- in no way authenticated by the signature of the judge. Their identification is left to the clerk, without any direction or guide to control him.” And this must be said and is true of the bill of exceptions in the present case." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Tennessee v. Danny Ralph TROUTMAN
STATE of Tennessee v. Danny Ralph TROUTMAN, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 899 (2008)
…lant questions whether “[t]he State failed to properly self authenticate the [appellant’s] Tennessee driving record,” and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his con *719 viction. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the appellant’s conviction for DUI, fourth offense; modify the conviction to reflect the appellant’s guilt of DUI…
Practitioners open STATE of Tennessee v. Danny Ralph TROUTMAN when Tennessee authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State failed to properly self authenticate the [appellant’s] Tennessee driving record,” and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his con *719 viction." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In Re De Franceschi's Estate.
In Re De Franceschi's Estate., 17 Tenn. App. 673 (1933)
…d copy with the alleged Italian probate with alleged proper authentication was filed with said petition. No executor having been named in the alleged will, the petitioner prayed that he be appointed the administrator cum testamento annexo, and that said certified copy of the probate from Italy be admitted to probate in the probate court of Shelby county, Tennessee. All of the a…
On authentication, In Re De Franceschi's Estate. speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "Italian probate with alleged proper authentication was filed with said petition." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State Ex Rel. Daugherty v. Payne, Sheriff.
State Ex Rel. Daugherty v. Payne, Sheriff., 180 Tenn. 268 (1943)
…te. It contains no affidavit before a magistrate and is not authenticated by the Governor. *270 The second document authorizes John H. Dolan, a parole officer of the State of New York, to take and receive from the proper authorities of the State of Tennessee, Lawrence Daugherty, alias Larry Malone, who is described as a fugitive from justice of the State of New York. This docum…
On authentication, State Ex Rel. Daugherty v. Payne, Sheriff. speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "It contains no affidavit before a magistrate and is not authenticated by the Governor. *270 The second document authorizes John H." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Mary Ellen Leonard HARRISON v. Arlene (Arlee) Leonard ARNOLD
Mary Ellen Leonard HARRISON v. Arlene (Arlee) Leonard ARNOLD, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 662 (1977)
…ts thereto on the basis of the failure of the Chancellor to authenticate the exhibits and to certify a proper bill of exceptions. The Court of Appeals further held that the Master exceeded the scope of his authority in making the independent examination of the title records and sustained a motion to disallow the Master’s fee. The technical record contains the Master’s report on…
Practitioners open Mary Ellen Leonard HARRISON v. Arlene (Arlee) Leonard ARNOLD when Tennessee authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Chancellor to authenticate the exhibits and to certify a proper bill of exceptions. The Court of Appeals further held that the Master exceeded the scope of his authority in making the independent examination of the title records and sustained a motion to disallow the Master’s fee." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Tenn. R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Tennessee appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Tennessee?
Tennessee applies the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Tennessee's rules follow the FRE; Tenn. R. Evid. 401–902 govern trials in circuit, chancery, and criminal courts.
How do Tennessee courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Tenn. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Tennessee?
Party-opponent statements under Tenn. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Tennessee?
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 32 governs civil deposition use at trial. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when unavailability is shown.
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Tennessee authenticity practice starts with Tenn. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.