STATE v. REEVES Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Two twelve-year-old girls planned to poison their teacher. One brought rat poison to school. The court held that possessing the poison in the classroom constituted a “substantial step” for criminal attempt, abandoning an older, more restrictive test.
Legal Significance: This case established Tennessee’s modern standard for the actus reus of criminal attempt, replacing the restrictive “mere preparation” vs. “overt act” distinction with the more flexible “substantial step” test, influenced by the Model Penal Code.
STATE v. REEVES Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The defendant, Tracie Reeves, and her friend, Molly Coffman, both twelve years old, planned to kill their homeroom teacher by putting rat poison in her drink. They also intended to steal the teacher’s car. The following day, Coffman brought a packet of rat poison to school. Another student who learned of the plan informed a teacher, who then notified the principal. The targeted teacher observed Reeves and Coffman leaning over her desk, where her coffee cup was located. Shortly thereafter, the principal searched Coffman’s purse and discovered the rat poison. Both girls gave written statements to an investigator confirming their plan to poison the teacher. A jury found that the girls had attempted to commit second-degree murder, and the juvenile court designated Reeves a delinquent child. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the defendant’s actions of planning to poison her teacher and bringing the poison into the classroom near the teacher’s desk constitute a “substantial step” toward the commission of murder under Tennessee’s criminal attempt statute?
Yes. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant’s actions constituted Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the defendant’s actions of planning to poison her teacher and bringing the poison into the classroom near the teacher’s desk constitute a “substantial step” toward the commission of murder under Tennessee’s criminal attempt statute?
Conclusion
This decision realigned Tennessee's criminal attempt law with the modern, MPC-influenced "substantial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Legal Rule
Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-101, a person commits criminal attempt by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed for the first time the meaning Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Abandons Tennessee’s old, narrow “overt act” test for criminal attempt, which