APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted review in this case to determine whether a court-ordered mental evaluation violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

In this action, plaintiff seeks uninsured motorist coverage from her insurance company, and the Trial Court, responding to motion for summary judgment, granted judgment to defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). Plaintiff has appealed.

This action for conversion was submitted to a jury which returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, thereby implicitly finding that the fact-driven principal defense of the Statute of Limitations was not well-taken. Home Federal appeals and presents for review issues which, as paraphrased, question the propriety of the submission of the case to the jury, whether the defense of Statute of Limitations was well-taken, as a matter of law, whether requested jury instructions should have been given and whether the drawer of a check adequately instructed the drawee Bank as to its disposition. Pacific Properties

This is a divorce action. The defendant (wife) assertson this appeal, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance of the trial. The record reflects that there was a great deal of confusion as to the way and manner the case was set for trial because of the resignation of the former Circuit Judge. The wife's counsel claims to have had no notice of the trial date until the day the case was set for trial. On that date, he applied to the court for a continuance. The court continued the case until the following morning at 7:00 a.m. Prior to the trial, the court allowed the wife's attorney to make a motion for a continuance on the record, with a written motion, to be filed as exhibit No.1. Counsel's affidavit supporting the motion for a continuance was allowed to be filed as exhibit 2.

The Appellant, Eldreid Reid, appeals as of right his conviction and sentence for one count of rape. He argues on appeal:

 (1) The trial court erred when it permitted the State to introduce evidence that Dorey Horton’s daughter had charged her with assault.
(2) The trial court erred in refusing to permit him to elicit certain testimony from Dorey Horton and in not allowing him to make an offer of proof regarding that testimony.
(3) The trial court erred when it prohibited him from introducing testimony that the first grand jury which considered the case returned a no true bill.
(4) His sentence is excessive.

We have reviewed the record presented in this appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the Appellant’s conviction and sentence.