M1997-00020-SC-R11-CD
M1997-00020-SC-R11-CD
Trial Court Judge: Ann Lacy Johns

W1997-00023-SC-DDT-DD
W1997-00023-SC-DDT-DD
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

State vs. J.D. Edward Ealey
03C01-9902-CR-00075
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

State vs. Charles Elsea, Jr.
03C01-9901-CR-00031

E1998-00176-SC-R11-CV
E1998-00176-SC-R11-CV

Momon vs. State
E1996-00007-SC-R11-PC

Momon vs. State
E1996-00007-SC-R11-PC

Shirley Clark v. Humboldt Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a Parkview Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
02S01-9903-CH-00029
Authoring Judge: J. Steven Stafford, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. George R. Ellis,
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issues presented by the defendant for our review are as follows: 1. Whether the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff interest on a judgment for benefits not yet accrued where the award was not reduced to a lump sum award; and 2. Whether the trial court erred in awarding discretionary costs for the deposition of Dr. R.J. Barnett, for obtaining medical records, and for a filing fee and service fee.

03C01-9812-CC-0441
03C01-9812-CC-0441
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

State vs. David Lee Hurst
03C01-9901-CC-00011
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

Clark vs. Service Corp. Int'l.
M1998-00160-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Buford vs. TDOC
M1998-00157-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Crumbley vs. Crumbley
M1998-00158-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart

Kennedy vs. Trammel
M1999-00538-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd

M1999-00540-COA-R3-CV
M1999-00540-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co. vs. Gloria Batts
M1999-00078-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This appeal involves a dispute between a homeowner and her insurance company regarding the damages to her house caused by the tornado that struck Nashville on April 16, 1998. When they could not agree on the amount of the loss, both parties invoked the insurance policy's provision for the appointment of appraisers. After the parties' two appraisers could not agree on the amount of the loss, the two appraisers selected a third appraiser who eventually agreed with the homeowner's appraiser regarding the amount of the loss. The insurance company filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to pay the homeowner less than one-half of the amount of the loss calculated by the two appraisers. Both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted the insurance company's motion, concluding that the insurance policy's appraisal clause was not an agreement for binding arbitration and that the appraisers had not been empowered to determine whether parts of the claimed damage had been caused by a peril covered by the policy. The homeowner takes issue with both of the trial court's legal conclusions on this appeal. We have determined that the trial court interpreted the insurance policy correctly and, therefore, that the trial court properly concluded that the insurance company was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Herman Holston v. State of Tennessee
W2004-00461-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: J. C. Mclin

William Logan vs. State
03C01-9808-CR-00287
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler

State vs. Marsha Trentham
03C01-9811-CC-00405
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance

Mark Griffis vs. State
03C01-9811-CR-00397
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

John Ailworth v. Roadway Express, Inc.
01S01-9808-CV-00146
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Thomas Brothers,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer contends that the trial court erred in awarding compensation for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability and in

State of Tennessee v. Terry Allen Dominy
M1995-00001-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

The dispositive issues in this appeal are as follows: (1) whether the indictment in this case charging the defendant with aggravated rape is sufficient to support a conviction for spousal rape, a “lesser grade” offense under this Court’s 1The defendant rais ed tw o oth er iss ues in this a ppeal: (1) whe ther th e trial c ourt e rred in refus ing to gran t the d efendant’s mo tion fo r recusal; and (2) w heth er the trial co urt er red in admitting into evidence a tape-recorded interview between the victim and the field supervisor of the Department of Human Services. Because we have reversed and remanded on other grounds, we need not address these issues in detail. However, we note that the proof in this record indicates that the trial judge was residing in a home owned by the assistant district attorney who prosecuted this case and was paying only the utilities and cable bills and not monthly rental. Under such circum stance s, recus al is appro priate. See Sup. C t. R. 10, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 2(A) 4(D)(5 ), and 3(E ). We also agree w ith the defen dant that th e trial court er red in allow ing the Sta te to offer into evidence the entire tape-recorded interview of the victim by the Department of Human Services field supervisor. While the State has the right to “convey the true picture of the prior statement alleged to be inconsistent,” State v. Boyd, 797 S.W .2d 5 89, 5 93-9 4 (Te nn. 1990), this rule does not form a basis for reference to portions of the statement which were not made an issue on cross-exam ination and which are not necessa ry to convey an acc urate picture of the matters discussed on cross-examination. The trial judge could have either allowed the State to question the witness concerning her prior statement to place her testimony on cross examination into context or permitted the State to use the transcript of the DHS tape to refresh the victim’s recollection. Neither the tape nor the transcript, how ever, should have been introduced as substantive evidence in this case. decision in State v. Trusty, 919 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. 1996); and (2) if so, should this Court reconsider it decision in Trusty. We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that, under Trusty, the indictment in this case would be sufficient to support a conviction for the “lesser grade” offense of spousal rape. However, upon careful reconsideration, we overrule Trusty to the extent that it recognizes “lesser grade” offenses as distinct from lesser-included offenses and permits convictions of “lesser grade” offenses that are not lesser-included offenses embraced by the indictment. In light of our overruling of Trusty, the indictment in this case is not sufficient to support a conviction for spousal rape. Therefore, we vacate the defendant’s convictions, dismiss the indictments, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

State of Tennessee Henry Circuit v. Brenda Anne Burns
W1996-00004-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

Defendant/appellee Brenda Burns was tried and convicted of criminal responsibility for the commission of first-degree murder in the death of her ex-husband, Paul Burns.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction on the basis that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to interview two potential defense witnesses and present the testimony of those witnesses before the jury. The State filed an Application for Permission to Appeal contesting the intermediate court’s reversal of the defendant’s conviction on that basis. The defendant filed a Cross-Application for Permission to Appeal raising, among other issues, whether the trial court had committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (i.e., first-degree murder), Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-403 (1991), and solicitation to commit a criminal offense (i.e., first-degree murder), Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-102 (1991). We granted both Applications in order to address these important issues.