Unless otherwise indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
State v. Rimmer, 623 S.W.3d 235, 253 (Tenn. 2021).
Questions of constitutional interpretation are reviewed de novo, with no presumption of correctness afforded to the conclusions of the trial court. State v. Feaster, 466 S.W.3d 80, 83 (Tenn. 2015).
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Guy, No. E2021-00560-CCA-R3-CD, p. 60 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 28, 2023).
“Issues of constitutional interpretation are questions of law, which we review de novo without any presumption of correctness given to the legal conclusions of the courts below.” Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873, 882 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 836 (Tenn. 2008)). “In evaluating the constitutionality of a statute, we begin with the presumption that an act of the General Assembly is constitutional.” Gallaher v. Elam, 104 S.W.3d 455, 459 (Tenn. 2003) (citing State v. Robinson, 29 S.W.3d 476, 479 (Tenn. 2000); Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 51 (Tenn. 1997)). To this end, we “indulge every presumption and resolve every doubt in favor of the statute’s constitutionality.” State v. Taylor, 70 S.W.3d 717, 721 (Tenn. 2002).
State of Tennessee v. Hinson, No. W2021-00257-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 3, 2022).
Statutory interpretation and the application of a statute to facts that are not in dispute present a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo with no presumption of correctness. Kyle v. Williams, 98 S.W.3d 661, 663-64 (Tenn. 2003). This Court also reviews constitutional issues de novo. State v. Merriman, 410 S.W.3d 779, 791 (Tenn. 2013).