APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case arises from a motorcycle accident in which Randy LaRue, the 20-year old son of the plaintiff's, was killed. Plaintiff's sued 1817 Lake, Inc., D/B/A/ Bonkers, a Knoxville restaurant and bar, and Howard Tannenbaum, presidetn of 1817 Lake Inc., alleging that the defendant negligently and unlawfully served Randy and his companion, defendant Danny Brewer, alcoholic beverages on the evening of the accident. Plaintiffs also sued Robert Archer, the bartender who allegedly provided LaRue and Brewer with the drinks, and Ricky Chambers, the doorman on duty at Bonkers that night. The remaining defendant, Danny G. Brewer was the operator of the motor cycle at the time of the accident which resulted in Randall Charles LaRues, death.

The defendant, Quantreal Underwood, was convicted of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated robbery.1 The trial court imposed a Range I, twenty-five-year sentence for second degree murder and two concurrent eight-year sentences on each count of aggravated robbery.

The appellant, Roger Lee Fleenor, appeals the sentence imposed by the Sullivan County Criminal Court upon his plea of guilty to the offense of attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a class C felony. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the appellant received a sentence of eight years as a range II offender. The manner of service of the sentence was submitted to the trial court for determination. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied any form of alternative sentence and ordered that the sentence be served in the Department of Correction.
The appellant now appeals this decision.

The defendant, Lester Lee Doyle, was convicted by a Benton County jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, and driving on a revoked license. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm the conviction.

James C. Hise, Jr. and wife, Brenda L. Hise sued the State of Tennessee, the Department of Transportation and its commissioner for damages in an inverse condemnation action. The complaint alleges that, after conveying a portion of their property to the state, they learned that the project adversely impacted their commercial property. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity. The motion was granted and the plaintiffs appealed.

The defendant was convicted by jury of two counts of rape and two counts of incest. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve (12) years for each rape conviction and to six (6) years for each incest conviction to the custody of the Department of Correction. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the rape convictions consecutive to each other and consecutive to prior unserved sentences but concurrent with the incest convictions. The trial court also imposed fines in the amount of $25,000 for each rape conviction and $10,000 for each incest conviction.

The appellant, Hollis G. Williams (defendant), was convicted of first-degree felony murder by a jury of his peers. The State of Tennessee sought the extreme penalty of death. However, the jury set his punishment at life without the possibility of parole. The defendant presents three issues for review. He contends (a) the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support his conviction for a murder committed during an attempt to commit robbery, (b) the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by ruling his two convictions for attempt to commit robbery could be used to impeach him if he opted to testify in support of his defense, and (c) the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by permitting the state to introduce victim impact testimony during the sentencing hearing. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, it is the opinion of this Court the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

The Defendant, John Parnell Yaugher, appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant was convicted following a jury trial in Anderson County of the offense of rape of a child. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the allegations in the indictment to charge an offense. Also, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and specifically argues that his confession was uncorroborated, that there was no proof of penetration, and that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was sane at the time of the offense. Furth er, the Defendant argu es that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress his statement to investigators and by charging in the jury instructions the lesser grade offense of aggravated sexual battery. Finding no
error, and that the indictment and the evidence are sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This lawsuit involves the breach of a lease agreement. The corporate lessee vacated the premises and stopped paying rent; consequently, the lessor filed suit. The trial court found the lessee in breach of the lease, but found the lease agreement unconscionable, held that the lessor failed to mitigate its damages, and held that the president of the corporate lessee could not be held personally liable. We affirm the trial court’s finding of a breach, but reverse its remaining findings and award the lessor damages for the entire term of the lease.

In this appeal,1 we must determine whether a false response from an individual to an inquiry made by a law enforcement officer constitutes a false report within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-502(a)(1) (1991). After careful review, we hold that § 39-16-502(a)(1) applies to statements volunteered or initiated by an individual but does not apply to statements made in response to inquiries by law enforcement officers. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

The defendant, Merlin Eugene Shuck, was convicted of one count of solicitation to commit first degree murder and two counts of solicitation to commit especially aggravated kidnaping. The defense theory at trial was entrapment, and in support of that defense, Shuck sought to introduce expert testimony from a neuropsychologist that he had suffered a cognitive decline and significant
deterioration of his cognitive abilities which rendered him more susceptible to inducement than the average person. The trial judge refused to admit the testimony finding that it would invade the province of the jury. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial. Thereafter, we granted the State permission to appeal to consider whether expert psychological testimony about a defendant’s susceptibility to inducment is admissible under Tennessee law to establish entrapment.