SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

State vs. Bryant Dewayne Millen
02S01-9711-CR-00106

State vs. Bryant Dewayne Millen
02S01-9711-CR-00106
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

O2-S-01-9710-CR-00085
O2-S-01-9710-CR-00085

Holt vs. Lewis
01S01-9809-PB-00165

Parent vs. State
01S01-9804-BC-00066

Eyring vs. Fort Sanders Parkwest et al
03S01-9711-CV-00134

King vs. State
03S01-9801-CR-00001

Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
01S01-9609-CV-00196
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
01S01-9709-CH-00185

State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081

State vs. Harris
02S01-9806-CC-00053

State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring
02S01-9806-CC-00053
Authoring Judge: Special Justice David B. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).

State vs. Small
03S01-9804-CR-00038

State vs. Madkins
02S01-9805-CR-00046
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Tyrone Chalmers
02C01-9711-CC-00449
Trial Court Judge: Gary R. Wade

Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker
01S01-9704-CH-00085
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Allen W. Wallace

We granted the appeal in this child custody case to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding the effects of an interracial relationship on the child and in later excluding the trial court’s comments from the statement of evidence.

State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry
02S01-9709-CC-00079
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court properly ruled that the prosecution abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the relevant factors in denying the defendant’s application for pretrial diversion, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the prosecutor’s written letter denying diversion did not discuss all of the relevant factors, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to allow the prosecutor to testify as to the factors that were considered in denying pretrial diversion.

Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker - Concurring
01S01-9704-CH-00085
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Allen W. Wallace

Although I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the grant of custody to the father, I write separately to condemn the appearance of impropriety this case exudes. As the United
States Supreme Court stated in Offutt v. U.S., 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13, 99 L. Ed. 11, 16 (1954), “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” The trial court’s actions in this case do not satisfy that appearance.

State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry - Dissenting
02S01-9709-CC-00079
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder

I disagree with the majority's holding in this case that the district attorney
general abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. The defendant has
committed an extremely serious offense in this case. She has admitted to
embezzling approximately $27,400.00 from her employer. Her crime was not an
isolated incident but a complicated, calculated, and deliberate criminal scheme
that occurred repeatedly over a course of two years until she was ultimately
caught.

Frances Miller Bell by Janet Snyder, Conservator & Attorney-In-Fact v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., and William Gordon Bell and Hunton & Williams and Long, Ragsdale and Waters
03S01-9809-CV-00101
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm

We granted this appeal to determine whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action for abuse of process. We conclude that the complaint fails to allege one of the essential elements of the tort -- an improper act in the use of process. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6).

Diana Morris v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9804-BC-00076
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner W.R. Baker

This case requires us to determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions filed against the State for the tort of retaliatory discharge.1 Because we conclude that the Claims Commission does not have such jurisdiction, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating the Claims Commission’s award and dismissing the retaliatory discharge action is affirmed.

Zagorski vs. State of TN
01S01-9711-CC-00240

Hooker vs. Thompson
01A01-9709-CH-00533

Edmund George Zagorski v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9711-CC-00240
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant Edmund George Zagorski has filed a petition to rehear this cause
pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39 contending that our opinion conflicts with and/or
overlooks principles of law regarding trial counsel’s duties to investigate mitigation
evidence and fully advise a defendant regarding a potential mitigation defense. We
have reviewed all of the arguments raised in the petition, and we find them to be
without merit.