Please enter some keywords to search.
| State vs. Derrick Sayles
W1998-00425-SC-R11-CD
Shelby County -Derrick Sayles was convicted of second degree murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial on the ground that the trial court had erred in refusing to allow Sayles's counsel to probe the circumstances surrounding the bond reduction and the charge reduction accorded to the State's principal witness immediately after his testimony. The State appealed. We hold that the trial court erred when it refused to allow Sayles's counsel to probe the circumstances surrounding benefits granted to the witness after his testimony; Sayles's right to confrontation was therefore violated. We cannot hold that this violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. This cause is therefore remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to allow Sayles's counsel to probe the circumstances resulting in the bond reduction and the charge reduction, both of which were granted after the witness had testified. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part and this cause is remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Arthur T. Bennett |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 11/16/00 | |
| State vs. Timothy Walton
W1998-00329-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Originating Judge:R. Lee Moore Jr. |
Dyer County | Supreme Court | 11/16/00 | |
| State vs. Harold Bayuk
M2000-01654-CCA-R3-CD
The Appellant, Harold M. Bayuk, was convicted by a Hickman County Circuit Court jury of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and one count of driving on a revoked license. Following his conviction for DUI, the Appellant waived his right to jury sentencing and agreed to submit the issue of enhanced punishment to the trial court. The trial court found the Appellant guilty of DUI, third offense, and sentenced him to eleven months twenty-nine days, with 150 days to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to serve 150 days instead of the statutory minimum of 120 days. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, vacate in part, and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment of conviction.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Timothy L. Easter |
Hickman County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| State vs. Gregory Lynn Redden
M2000-00988-CCA-R3-CD
The Appellant, Gregory Lynn Redden, was convicted by a Robertson County jury of burglary, theft of property over $1,000, and criminal impersonation. He received concurrent sentences of twelve years for burglary, twelve years for theft of property, and six months for criminal impersonation. On appeal, the Appellant raises the following three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in not excusing two jurors for cause during voir dire; and (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the statement of the Appellant's confession into evidence. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Robert W. Wedemeyer |
Robertson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Scarborough
M2000-01359-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Timothy L. Easter |
Hickman County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| Mahan vs. Mahan
M1999-01366-COA-R3-CV
In this divorce case, the husband appeals the award of custody of the children to the wife, the admission of certain evidence at trial, and the redistribution of marital property on a post-judgment motion following his bankruptcy. We affirm the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Originating Judge:Carol A. Catalano |
Montgomery County | Court of Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| State vs. Curtis Emery Duke
M2000-00350-CCA-R3-CD
The appellant, Curtis Emery Duke, was convicted in the Marshall County Circuit Court of two counts of the sale of crack cocaine, one count of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell, two counts of criminal impersonation, and one count of failure to appear. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of thirty-nine years. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Originating Judge:William Charles Lee |
Marshall County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| State of Tennessee v. Clyde Smith
M2002-2138-CCA-R3-CD
Originating Judge:John H. Gasaway, III |
Robertson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| D&E Construction Co. vs. Robert J. Denley Co.
W1998-00445-SC-R11-CV
The contractor submitted to arbitration a contractual payment dispute with the project owner arising from a contract to build a subdivision in Collierville. The arbitrators found in favor of the contractor and included an award of attorney's fees. The trial court determined that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority in awarding attorney's fees and vacated the arbitration award. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the entire award. We hold that when the arbitrators awarded attorney's fees, they exceeded their authority by awarding upon a matter not within the scope of the contract's arbitration provision. Therefore, we reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacate the award of attorney's fees.
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Originating Judge:Walter L. Evans |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 11/15/00 | |
| State of Tennesse v. Michael Herndon
M2000-01080-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Originating Judge:John H. Gasaway, III |
Montgomery County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| State vs. James P. Stout
W1998-00079-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 11/15/00 | |
| State vs. Timothy Tyrone Sanders
M2000-00603-CCA-R3-CD
The Appellant, Timothy Tyrone Sanders, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The Appellant was sentenced to seventeen years six months as a range II offender. On appeal, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court improperly sentenced the Appellant. After review, we conclude that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on simple possession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:William Charles Lee |
Bedford County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| Archie Lee Roberts vs. State
M1999-02462-CCA-R3-PC
The petitioner, Archie Lee Roberts, was found guilty by a jury in the DeKalb County Criminal Court of one count of first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence, and one count of attempted first degree murder, for which he received a sentence of twenty years incarceration. On direct appeal, we affirmed the petitioner's convictions. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which petition was denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, the petitioner raises the following issue for our review: whether the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim for relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Originating Judge:Leon C. Burns, Jr. |
DeKalb County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| State of Tennessee v. James P. Stout
M1998-00079-SC-DDT-DD
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 11/15/00 | |
| State vs. Antonio Kendrick
W1997-00157-SC-R11-CD
We granted this appeal to determine whether the prosecution's failure to elect the particular offense of aggravated rape upon which it sought to convict the defendant constituted plain error and required a new trial. The main purpose of the election requirement is to preserve a defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict under the Tennessee Constitution. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction for one count of aggravated rape without examining the election issue. After reviewing the record and controlling authority, we conclude that the prosecution's failure to elect the particular offense upon which it sought to convict the defendant failed to preserve the defendant's rights under the Tennessee Constitution and constituted plain error. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Originating Judge:Arthur T. Bennett |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 11/15/00 | |
| Heatherly vs. Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
M1998-00906-COA-R10-CV
This extraordinary appeal involves a dispute between two homeowners whose house was damaged by fire and the two insurance adjusting companies hired by the homeowners' insurance carrier to investigate their claim. Believing that their claim had been fraudulently processed, the homeowners filed suit in the Circuit Court for Sumner County against their insurance carrier and the two adjusting companies. The three defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as to the adjusting companies. After the trial court denied the motions and declined to grant an interlocutory appeal, the two adjusting companies petitioned for a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appeal. We granted the application and now reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss because the homeowners have conceded that they have no breach of contract claim against the adjusting companies and because we have concluded that the homeowners' claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Thomas Goodall |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| State vs. Vincent Sims
W1998-00634-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 11/15/00 | |
| State vs. Vincent Sims
W1998-00634-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 11/15/00 | |
| Clifton vs. Acosta-Delgado
M2000-00253-COA-R3-CV
This is a post-divorce child custody dispute. The mother filed a petition to regain custody of the parties' three children after she had entered into an agreed order in 1995 granting custody to the defendant father. After hearing testimony on, inter alia, the father driving while intoxicated with the children in the car with him, the trial court found a material change in circumstances, granted custody to the mother, and ordered the father to pay child support. The father appeals, arguing that there was not a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a change in custody, that the trial court inappropriately considered his child support arrearage prior to the 1995 agreed order, and that the trial court miscalculated his income, resulting in an unreasonably high child support award. We affirm, finding a material change in circumstances warranting a change in custody, and finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the award of child support.
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Originating Judge:Muriel Robinson |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| In re: Estate of Willette Bonita Carnahan
M1999-00494-COA-R3-CV
This appeal arises from a will contest in which the defendant has appealed from a jury verdict invalidating a will on the grounds of unsound mind and undue influence. The deceased executed two wills. The first will was executed in 1985 naming the plaintiff who was a friend, employee, and the son of the family who cared for her in her later years as the sole beneficiary. The second will was executed in 1993 naming the defendant, a man who share cropped tobacco on her farm and was paid to mow her lawn, as the sole beneficiary. The plaintiff alleged that at the time the latter will was executed, the testator was of unsound mind and had been unduly influenced by the defendant. At trial, the jury returned special findings that the deceased was not of sound and disposing mind on December 29, 1993, when the second will was executed and that she was unduly influenced by the defendant in making the last will and testament. On appeal, the defendant presents three issues: (1) whether there was material, substantial evidence to support the jury findings, (2) whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury regarding a presumption of undue influence and the burden of proof on finding a confidential relationship, and (3) whether the trial court erred in assessing court costs against the defendant and not awarding him attorneys fees. We affirm the judgment.
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Originating Judge:Tom E. Gray |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 11/15/00 | |
| Suzanne Burlew vs. Brad Burlew
M1998-01177-SC-R11-CV
The issue in this divorce case concerns the type and amount of alimony that should be awarded to the Wife. The trial court awarded her $220,000 of alimony in solido to be paid out in decreasing amounts over eight years, and declined to award her rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's in solido award but remanded the case to the trial court to award rehabilitative alimony of at least $1,000 per month for a reasonable period of time. Before this Court, the Husband/appellee argues that rehabilitative alimony is unnecessary and that the alimony in solido award is excessive. The Wife/appellant counters that the in solido award was not excessive; indeed, she argues that she should have been awarded alimony in futuro. We hold that the trial court properly awarded alimony in solido rather than alimony in futuro. We also hold that the trial court did not err in denying the Wife's request for rehabilitative alimony. Thus, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Originating Judge:Floyd Peete, Jr. |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 11/14/00 | |
| State vs. William Clouse
M2000-00436-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Originating Judge:J. Richard Mcgregor |
Van Buren County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/00 | |
| Ingram Book Company v. Rebecca Rowland
M1999-01233-WC-R3-CV
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) (1999) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusion of law. In this case, the employee contends the trial court erred in finding no causal connection between her injury and employment and no permanent partial disability. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings and reverses its decision. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right: Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded TURNBULL, SP. J., in which DROWOTA, J., and LOSER S. J. joined. D. Russell Thomas and Herbert M. Schaltegger, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rebecca Rowland. D. Brett Burrow and Delicia R. Bryant, Brewer, Krause & Brooks, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ingram Book Company. MEMORANDUM OPINION Background Rebecca Rowland ("Rowland"), the employee-appellant, is a forty-two years old mother of two who has been married for twenty-three years. She dropped out of school in the tenth grade but obtained her GED in 1984. She has worked at various unskilled jobs: Working as a waitress, cook and cashier; cleaning apartments; working as a housekeeper and supervisor for a hotel. Rowland worked for Ingram Book Company [Ingram], the employer-appellee, from 1993 to 1999. She first worked as an order puller, scanning books and placing them on shelves, and then worked as a shagger, locating books that order pullers could not locate. Her last job, prior to her alleged injury, was a job in which she was required to do forceful repetitive hand motions in cutting open cardboard boxes as well as dust mopping with a wide mop. After working in this last job four weeks, she developed carpal tunnel syndrome in April of 1997. Rowland was also diagnosed as having hypothyroidismin November 1997 and has taken medication since December 1997. She returned to work after the surgery and worked for Ingram for one and a half years. Then she left Ingram because of her dissatisfaction with management practices. According to Rowland's own trial testimony, which is unimpeached and uncontradicted, she continued to have pain in her hands, wrists and arms and to have diminished strength in her hands with regard to gripping or twisting. The parties submitted two medical depositions: the testimony of Dr. Martin and Dr. Gaw. Dr. David Martin, a plastic surgeon with additional training in carpel tunnel syndrome, first saw Ms. Rowland on June 19, 1997. Based on her complaints of numbness and pain, his clinical evaluation and the E.M.G. studies of Dr. Richard Lisella, Dr. Martin diagnosed bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome, greater on the left than on the right. He immediately scheduled Ms. Rowland for surgery on her left wrist which was performed on June 27, 1997. He prescribed a wrist splint for her right wrist, also on June 19, 1997. Dr. Martin released the employee to return to one-handed work on July 9,1997. Although the left wrist and hand were improved by surgery, the right handed symptoms increased with the one-handed work, and Dr. Martin scheduled and performed carpel tunnel release surgery on the right wrist on August 12, 1997. She was again released to return to one-handed duties on August 22, 1997. Some thirty-nine days after Ms. Rowland returned to work, Dr. Martin, on October 1, 1997, found that ... "her symptoms have completely resolved. She has mild, residual, right peri-incisional sensitivity which continues to improve." He kept a ten pound weight restriction in force for one month and opined that Ms. Rowland would retain a % [zero] permanent impairment. Dr. Martin treated Ms. Rowland under workers compensation, was paid for his services by workers compensation benefits provided by Ingram, and never made any medical note, nor does the record reveal he expressed any opinion, that the injury was not work related until he gave his deposition on July 1, 1999. Dr. David Gaw, an orthopaedic surgeon, saw Ms. Rowland one time, February 2, 1998. His examination lasted thirty to forty-five minutes. At that time, Ms. Rowland was complaining of continued weakness, transient tingling, pain on repetitive use, and was found to have a positive Phalens test and slightly diminished perception to pin prick. Based upon the patient's history, Dr. Gaw expressed the opinion "most likely cause is the type of work she described down at Ingram Books." He further opined that there was "no real question as to causation" if her history is true. Dr. Gaw assigned a 1%impairment to each arm. Neither of the experts testified that the thyroid [2]
Authoring Judge: Turnbull, Sp. J.
Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor |
Davidson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 11/14/00 | |
| William Floyd vs. State
M2000-00318-CCA-R3-CD
William Floyd appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1998, Floyd pled guilty to two counts of rape and, under the terms of his plea agreement, was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. In his petition for post-conviction relief, Floyd contends that his guilty pleas are involuntary because on the date his pleas were entered he was under the influence of prescribed psychotropic drugs. The petition was dismissed by the post-conviction court and this appeal follows. Finding that the evidence in the record does not support Floyd's claim, we affirm the lower court's dismissal.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:J. S. Daniel |
Cannon County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/00 | |
| State vs. Stephen T. Mays a/k/a Stephen T. Mayes
M2000-00602-CCA-R3-CD
The Appellant, Stephen T. Mays, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property over $10,000 and received two concurrent five-year sentences. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed split confinement sentences and ordered the Appellant to serve a ninety-day period of confinement. The court also ordered restitution with scheduled payments over a ten-year period. On appeal, the Appellant argues (1) that the trial court erred in failing to grant the Appellant's request for total probation; and (2) that the trial court improperly established restitution. After review, the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Cheryl A. Blackburn |
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/00 |