Allied Sound, Inc. vs Eddie Neely & Johnny Davis
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
E2000-01095-R3-CV
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Dexter L. Williams vs. State
|
Blount | Supreme Court | |
Dexter L. Williams vs. State
|
Blount | Supreme Court | |
Blanche Bunch vs. Robert Sharp
|
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Hutter, vs. Robert Cohen & John Hutter vs. Allen Bray
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Hutter, vs. Robert Cohen & John Hutter vs. Allen Bray
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Hutter, vs. Robert Cohen & John Hutter vs. Allen Bray
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Hutter, vs. Robert Cohen & John Hutter vs. Allen Bray
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Loreta MCCollum, et al vs. James Connatser
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Hull vs. Susan Hull and Garth Eddy
|
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
James Crawford vs. Ray Thomason, et al
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Doris Tipton vs. Elizabeth Quinn
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Dawn Frisbey v. Dorothy Marie Frisbey
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Keith Pfister vs. Tammy Searle (Moretti)
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy McKinney
We affirm the defendant’s convictions of first degree murder and attempted second degree murder and the death sentence imposed on the murder charge, despite the defendant’s claims that: (1) the trial court erroneously disallowed expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification; (2) the jury’s capital sentencing verdict was infirm; (3) the trial court erroneously allowed the impeachment of a defense character witness during the penalty phase of the trial; (4) the trial court erred in allowing victim impact evidence that related to the impact of the victim’s death on persons or institutions other than the victim’s family; (5) the trial court erroneously limited the defendant’s argument to the jury during the penalty phase; (6) cumulative errors require reversal of the death sentence; (7) the Tennessee death penalty statute is, for various reasons, unconstitutional. We find no error and hold that the death penalty in this case was proportionate to the death penalty imposed in similar cases, the sentence was not arbitrarily imposed, and the evidence supports the jury’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance and its finding that the aggravating circumstance outweighs any mitigating circumstances. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) (1997). |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Johnson, Jr.
Defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of felony murder and received a life sentence. In this appeal, defendant alleges: (1) the trial court erred in failing to suppress both his oral and written statements given to authorities; and (2) the state improperly exercised its peremptory challenges based upon race and gender. Upon our review, we are unable to resolve the suppression issue due to inadequate findings of fact and, therefore, remand for further findings regarding the oral and written statements. We conclude the trial court correctly ruled that there were legitimate race and gender-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges. The judgment of the trial court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further findings and/or proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Supreme Court | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Robert M. Sneed v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant was convicted of DUI, second offense, and driving on a revoked license, second offense. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, and he subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his request for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial; that he was denied a fair trial because the trial judge refused to recuse himself; and that the post-conviction court erred in refusing to admit certain evidence. We affirm the denial of the Defendant's request for post-conviction relief. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Karen Stempa, et al vs. Walgreen Co., et al
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Susan Weissfeld vs. Steven Weissfeld
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
City of Knoxville, et al vs. Robert J. Taylor, et al
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Norman B. Thompson
The Defendant, Norman B. Thompson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation. We find no abuse of discretion in the revocation; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking the Defendant’s probation. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lisa Venable vs. Boyd Venable
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals |