The Supreme Court will travel from Knoxville to Memphis and points in between next week, swearing in the state’s newest attorneys and hearing cases in West Tennessee.
Each summer and fall, following the announcement of the results of the bar exam, the Supreme Court welcomes new attorneys to the practice of law in Tennessee with swearing-in ceremonies. The Supreme Court will swear in over 300 new attorneys beginning in Knoxville on November 2nd, in Nashville on November 3rd, in Jackson on November 4th, and in Memphis on November 5th. In addition, the Court will hear oral arguments in Jackson and Memphis. The four criminal cases to be heard in Jackson on November 4th are:
- Rashe Moore v. State – This is a post-conviction appeal by Mr. Moore, who is currently serving a 99-year sentence for multiple counts of rape, robbery, kidnapping, and burglary. He is asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. The Court will review whether the failure of Mr. Moore’s attorney to file a written request for certain jury instructions at trial warrants granting a new trial on the kidnapping charges.
- State v. Jimmy Dale Qualls – The defendant was convicted in Hardeman County of 37 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure. He received a 35-year prison sentence. Mr. Qualls appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a new trial, holding that the prosecution did not properly identify the specific detailed offenses during trial. The Supreme Court will consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in granting a new trial on that basis.
- State v. Willie Duncan – A jury found the defendant guilty of robbery, kidnapping, and burglary charges, as well as employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the trial court failed to properly tie the firearm charge to a specific felony. The Supreme Court will review whether the State must specify a felony when employing this particular firearms charge and whether the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping with a deadly weapon can be used as such a felony.
- State v. Rhakim Martin – The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of carjacking and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Mr. Martin’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court will review whether proper jury instructions were given. The Court will also consider whether the failure to name a specific felony that relates to the firearms offense voids the indictment on that charge.
The cases to be heard in Memphis on November 5th at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law are:
- State v. Michael Smith– A Memphis-area man, Michael Smith, was found guilty of aggravated assault and evading arrest in a case in which he allegedly violated an order of protection. Mr. Smith appealed, citing ten issues for review, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and will review seven issues, including whether the admission of testimony about the defendant’s prior assault case was error and whether the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the defendant to sit at counsel table during the trial.
- Donriel A. Borne v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.– In this case, a trucker was injured in an accident that involved three tractor-trailer trucks. He sued the other two drivers and trucking companies, but later dismissed the other drivers from the case. Before trial, the trucker made an agreement with one of the trucking companies that the two parties would work together against the other trucking company in litigation. A jury returned a $3,705,000 verdict against the other trucking company, but the trial court reduced the amount to $2,100,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals made several adjustments to the jury’s award, ultimately ending up with an award of $2,105,000. The Supreme Court will consider several issues in the case, including whether the parties’ agreement to work together against the third party violated Tennessee public policy and whether the adjustments to the jury’s award made by the trial court and the Court of Appeals were proper.