State of Tennessee v. Charles Rice
A jury convicted the defendant, Charles Rice, of first degree murder. Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury found three aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; and (3) the murder was knowingly committed by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit a rape. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 204(i)(2), (5), (7) (1997). The jury also found that these aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the jury imposed a sentence of death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003), this Court entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument,1 including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the aggravating circumstances found by the jury; (3) whether the trial court’s instruction to the jury that aggravated assault was a felony whose statutory elements involve violence to the person violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (4) whether the trial court’s restriction of the defendant’s cross-examination regarding Tony Evans’ prior conviction was harmless error; (5) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to sit at the defense counsel table; (6) whether the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation; and (7) whether the death sentence is comparatively proportionate and valid under the mandatory review provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(A)- (D) (2003). After a careful review of the record and relevant legal authority, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Kaitlyn Calaway ex rel. Kathleen Calaway v. Jodi Schucker, M.D. - Order
The appellants, Kaitlyn Calaway and Kathleen Calaway, have filed a petition to rehear the opinion of this Court issued December 9, 2005. In their petition, the appellants request that the Court give the decision in this case prospective application only. The appellants further request that the Court elaborate on certified questions one and two regarding the recovery of medical expenses where the statute of repose has not run on a minor’s claim. Upon due consideration, we conclude that the appellants’ petition to rehear is well-taken and should be granted to the extent that it seeks prospective application of the Court’s decision. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to substitute and file the attached amended majority opinion in place of the original majority opinion. The petition to rehear is denied to the extent that it seeks further discussion of certified questions one and two. Also before the Court are two motions filed by potential plaintiffs in an unrelated matter. Karen Crespo and Freddie Crespo have filed a motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae and a motion to file an amicus brief in excess of fifteen (15) pages. According to these motions, the Crespos are the parents of a minor child with a brain injury and are in the process of preparing a medical negligence suit. The Crespos urge the Court to rehear the opinion and allow them to brief the issues. After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that both of these motions filed by the Crespos should be denied. |
Supreme Court | ||
Kaitlyn Calaway ex rel. Kathleen Calaway v. Jodi Schucker, M.D. - Order
The appellants, Kaitlyn Calaway and Kathleen Calaway, filed a motion for rehearing of the opinion of this Court issued February 21, 2006. In their petition, the appellants request that the Court give prospective application of the newly announced rule to cases involving injuries occurring after December 9, 2005, rather than to cases commenced after this date. Upon due consideration, we conclude that the appellants’ petition is not well-taken and should be denied. Also before the Court is a motion to rehear filed by the appellee, Dr. Jodi Schucker. Appellee argues violation of her Due Process rights on two grounds: (1) that she was not given the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s motion to rehear on the matter of prospective application and (2) that prospective application of the new rule in a manner consistent with Due Process requires this Court to balance the appellant’s reliance interest on the old rule against the appellee’s vested property After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that this motion filed by the appellee should be denied. Justices Anderson and Holder adhere to the views previously expressed in their previously filed dissent. |
Supreme Court | ||
David D. Orrick v. Bestway Trucking, Inc., et al.
We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel erred in reducing the trial court's disability award from 33% to 3%. After reviewing the record and the applicable authority, we conclude that reduction of the trial court's award is appropriate. We further conclude, however, that we are unable to enter an appropriate award based on the record before us. We therefore remand to the trial court to enter an award consistent with this opinion. |
Warren | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. William Glenn Rogers
In this capital case, the defendant, William Glenn Rogers, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, rape of a child, and two counts of criminal impersonation in connection with the 1996 abduction, rape, and murder of nine-year-old Jacqueline Beard. The trial court merged the felony murder convictions with the premeditated murder conviction. Based on four aggravating circumstances, the jury imposed a sentence of death for the murder. The trial court sentenced Rogers to an effective sentence of fortyeight years for the other convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On automatic appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(a)(1), we designated the following issues for oral argument:1 1) whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress Rogers’ statements to law enforcement officers; 2) whether the trial court erred in supplementing the appellate record with mental health and social services records pertaining to the victim’s brother, Jeremy Beard; 3) whether the trial court violated Rogers’ constitutional rights by limiting cross-examination of Jeremy Beard; 4) whether the trial court committed harmful error in its instruction defining “intentionally”; 5) whether the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions for first degree murder, kidnapping, and rape; 6) whether the evidence is insufficient to support the aggravating circumstances; and 7) whether the sentence of death is disproportionate or invalid under the mandatory review of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1). Having carefully reviewed these issues and the remainder of the issues raised by Rogers, we conclude that they do not warrant relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. William Glenn Rogers - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
Wanda Barron v. State of Tennessee
The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits for pain in her lower back and hip resulting from a work-related accident. We conclude that the Commissioner erred in finding the evidence insufficient to establish that the plaintiff’s injury was permanent and in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Claims Commission and remand the case to determine the extent of vocational impairment and the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses paid by the plaintiff. |
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Robert Page
We granted the State’s application for permission to review this case pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 in order to determine the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110(c), which provides that failure to request a lesser-included offense instruction in writing waives the right to assign it as an issue in a motion for a new trial or on appeal. We conclude that section 40-18-110(c) renders the omission of instruction on lesserincluded offenses subject to the general rule that issues concerning instructions are considered waived in the absence of objection or a written request, unless they contain plain error. Under section 40-18-110(c), even absent a written request, the trial judge may still charge the jury on applicable lesser-included offenses and an appellate court may still review a lesser-included offense issue under the doctrine of plain error. We conclude, however, that the failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses in the present case does not constitute plain error. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
William Wiley v. State of Tennessee
We granted the applications for permission to appeal filed by the State of Tennessee and the petitioner to determine 1) whether State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999), which clarified the analysis for determining lesser-included offenses, created a new constitutional rule that must be applied retroactively to post-conviction cases, 2) whether the petitioner was entitled to post-conviction relief under the DNA Relief Act, and 3) whether the petitioner was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals granted a new trial as to the petitioner's felony murder conviction because the jury had not been charged on the lesser-included offense of second degree murder but denied post-conviction relief as to the petitioner's conviction for especially aggravated robbery. After due consideration, we conclude 1) that State v. Burns did not create a new constitutional rule that must be retroactively applied to post-conviction cases, 2) that the petitioner was not entitled to a new trial or other relief based on DNA results, and 3) that the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Kerry C. Lyons v. Gregory M. Lyons
The trial court determined a material change of circumstances had occurred which warranted modification of the parties’ child visitation scheduled. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Larrie Maclin AND State of Tennessee v. Michael Lebron Anderson
We granted permission to appeal these cases and then consolidated them to determine a question common to both: whether the admission at trial of an unavailable witness’s “excited utterance” to law enforcement officers at the crime scene violated the defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. We conclude that—depending on the particular facts of a case—an excited utterance can be “testimonial.” If the statement is determined to be “testimonial,” then under Sixth Amendment analysis as outlined in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and under Article I, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution, which guarantees the defendant’s right to “meet the witnesses face to face,” it is inadmissible unless the witness was unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. If the statement is not testimonial, then admissibility is governed by the standards of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980). We reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals in State v.Maclin and dismiss charges against the defendant for reckless aggravated assault; we affirm the lower court’s conviction in State v. Anderson of the defendant for burglary of a building other than a habitation. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Catherine Layman v. Vanguard Contractors, et al.
The plaintiff sought workers' compensation benefits for both cognitive impairment and a disfiguring scar resulting from a work-related accident. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff did not suffer cognitive impairment as a result of the accident. With regard to the benefits for disfigurement, the trial court erred in calculating benefits as an award to the body as a whole pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(F) (1999). Injuries for disfigurement are instead governed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(E) (1999), which limits the benefits for disfigurement to 200 weeks. Because the plaintiff's disfigurement may not be classified as an injury to the body as a whole, the trial court erred in limiting the award to two and one-half times the impairment rating as set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(1) (1999). After an independent review of the evidence, we conclude that the evidence supports a vocational disability of 20% due to the disfigurement. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is affirmed as modified, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
Steven Griffin v. State of Tennessee
We accepted review of this cause under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11, in order to address a question of first impression: whether the right to DNA analysis created by the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 may be waived by implication. Because the clear language of this Act provides that a petition for analysis may be filed at any time, we hold that the filing of such a petition is not subject to implied waiver. This holding, however, affects only eligibility to file the petition; the requirements set forth in the Act must be met before relief may be granted. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to this opinion. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Kaitlyn Calaway, ex. rel. Kathleen Calaway v. Jodi Schucker, M.D. - Dissenting
JANICE M. HOLDER, J., with whom E. RILEY ANDERSON, J., joins, dissenting |
Supreme Court | ||
Kaitlyn Calaway ex rel. and Kathleen Calaway v. Jodi Schucker, M.D.
Pursuant to Rule 23, we accepted four certified questions of law from the United States District |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Kaitlyn Calaway, ex rel. and Kathleen Calaway v. Jodi Schucker, M.D.
Pursuant to Rule 23, we accepted four certified questions of law from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The third certified question is the central question of the four and is dispositive of the others: Is the three-year statute of repose for medical malpractice in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-116, which contains no exception for minority, tolled during a plaintiff’s minority? Our answer is that the three-year statute of repose for medical malpractice actions is not tolled during the plaintiff’s minority. Giving effect to the plain language of the statute and finding no exception for minority among the two express exceptions in it—and cognizant of our constitutional role as interpreters, not makers, of the law—we hold that plaintiffs in their minority are bound by the three-year medical malpractice statute of repose. However, in order to avoid undue hardship to potential plaintiffs who have justly relied upon federal court and lower court precedents erroneously stating the opposite rule, the new rule we announce today is to apply prospectively only. Therefore, for cases commenced on or before December 9, 2005, we hold that the plaintiff’s minority tolls the medical malpractice statute of repose. For cases commenced after December 9, 2005, we hold that the plaintiff’s minority does not toll the medical malpractice statute of repose. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Sunil Kawatra v. Neelam Mantri Kawatra
This case involves a petition to relocate pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108 (2001). To determine whether the parties in a relocation case are spending substantially equal intervals of time with their child, the "time actually spent" with each parent should be computed in units of a day. The number of days to be credited to each parent should be based upon an examination of the residential schedule, additional time not reflected in the residential schedule, and adjustments for any violations to the residential schedule. To allocate a day for which both parents claim credit, the trial court should examine the hours that each parent actually spent with the child on that day, the activities in which each parent participated with the child, the resources that each parent expended on the child's behalf, and any other factor that the trial court considers to be relevant. After careful consideration of the record, we conclude that the parties were not spending substantially equal intervals of time with the child. Because the mother was spending a greater amount of time with the child, she should be permitted to relocate with the child pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108(d) (2001). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as modified, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sumner | Supreme Court | |
Tommy D. Lanius v. Nashville Electric Service
Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we accepted this interlocutory appeal from the Chancery Court of Sumner County in which the defendant, Nashville Electric Service, seeks dismissal or, in the alternative, transfer of this workers' compensation case to Davidson County, its county of residence, on the grounds, inter alia, of sovereign immunity and the common law local venue rule. We hold that the defendant is subject to the venue provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act because it voluntarily entered into the workers' compensation system pursuant to an express grant of authority from the General Assembly, which thus effected a waiver of its sovereign immunity. We further hold that the specific venue provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act control venue and apply to the exclusion of the common law local venue rule. Accordingly, the defendant may be sued in the plaintiff's county of residence, Sumner County. |
Sumner | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Sheila Bobadilla & Benjamin Bobadilla
We accepted review of this cause under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11, in order to address a question properly preserved and certified pursuant to the provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 37(b)(2). The question, as certified, is: "Whether the search warrant and accompanying affidavit that led to the search of the defendant's residence violated the United States and Tennessee Constitutions as well as Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c), so as to render all of the evidence seized pursuant thereto, illegal and inadmissible." In our painstaking review of the record, we have determined that the search warrant was not issued in accordance with the requirements of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 41(c). Thus, we are constrained to hold the search conducted pursuant to the warrant unreasonable and the evidence obtained as a result inadmissible. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, affirming the trial court's judgment on other grounds is reversed, and the indictment in this case is dismissed. |
Greene | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. David Scarbrough
We granted this interlocutory appeal prior to the defendant's retrial for felony murder to address the following issue: whether the defendant may contest his guilt as to the felony underlying the felony murder charge where the felony conviction for aggravated burglary was affirmed on direct appeal but the felony murder conviction was reversed. The trial court found that the defendant was prohibited from challenging his guilt as to the underlying felony of aggravated burglary because that conviction was final. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded, however, that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not prevent the defendant from contesting his guilt as to the underlying felony of aggravated burglary during the retrial for the charge of felony murder. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the use of collateral estoppel by the prosecution against the defendant to establish an essential element of the charged offense violates the right to trial by jury under article I, section 6 of the Tennessee Constitution. We further conclude, however, that the prosecution is permitted to introduce evidence of the prior conviction of aggravated burglary if the trial court determines that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment, and we remand to the trial court to hold the retrial consistent with the principles in this opinion. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. William Soller
We have before us the defendant's appeal in this case pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we granted the application in order to determine whether the trial court had authority, following imposition of an agreed sentence, to grant the defendant judicial diversion. Because judicial diversion was not included in the agreement, we conclude that the trial court lacked authority to alter the plea agreement. Additionally, once the judgments of "guilty" were entered, the trial court was precluded from granting judicial diversion because judicial diversion must be granted, if at all, "without entering a judgment of guilty." Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Sevier | Supreme Court | |
Thomas Poston Studdard v. State of Tennessee
We granted permission to appeal in this case pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in vacating the defendant’s conviction. The defendant, Thomas Poston Studdard, was indicted for three counts of rape of a child. To this original indictment he entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the charge of incest and was sentenced to a term of eight years as a Range II multiple offender. Pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, he filed a motion seeking correction or reduction of his sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled the motion, and he appealed. Without addressing the defendant’s stated concern, the Court of Criminal Appeals, ostensibly using the plain error doctrine, vacated the judgment of conviction on the grounds that incest is not a lesser included offense of child rape and because the record failed to reflect that the indictment had been amended. The intermediate court reinstated the original indictment and remanded the case. Because we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to accept the plea and because the criteria for plain error have not been met, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, reinstate the conviction for incest, and remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of the defendant’s sentencing issues. |
Dyer | Supreme Court | |
Eric Teter v. Republic Parking System, Inc.
The dispute in this case arises out of an employment contract which provides severance pay for an employee who is terminated for reasons “other than gross misconduct, fraud, embezzlement, theft or voluntary termination.” The defendant employer ceased providing severance pay to the employee after the employer discovered that the employee had engaged in gross misconduct while still employed by the company. The employee sued for breach of contract, seeking the severance pay due under the contract; the employer responded that had it known previously of the gross misconduct, it would have fired the employee, thus absolving it of any duty to provide severance pay. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employee, after concluding that the employee had been involuntarily terminated, thus triggering the severance pay provision, and that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the employer would have fired the employee had it known of the gross misconduct. The employee was awarded $795,037.35, less thirty days severance pay already paid, plus prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence in order to avoid liability in a breach of contract action, and because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employee would have been fired had the employer discovered the gross misconduct, we remand the case for trial. On the remaining issues raised by the employer, we affirm the Court of Appeals: the employee did not voluntarily resign from his position but was involuntarily terminated; the payment schedule found in the “Employment Protection Plan” regarding severance pay was incorporated into the employment contract; and the severance pay provisions did not constitute an illegal penalty. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Saylor v. Lakeway Trucking, Inc.
In this workers' compensation case, the employee sought benefits due to mental injuries that allegedly arose out of his contact with hazardous material in the course of his employment. We conclude that the record and the applicable law support the trial court's determination that the employee's mental injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment and that the employee is 100% permanently disabled with respect to his mental faculties. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Supreme Court | |
Charles Brown, et al. v. Crown Equipment Corporation
We granted appeal in this products liability action to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding as unreliable the testimony of the plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses, a mechanical engineer and a biomechanical engineer, and thereafter granting a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. We hold that the trial court erred in applying the nonexclusive list of reliability factors set out in McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997). These factors are not mandated in every case in which expert evidence is offered and should not be applied unless the factor or factors provide a reasonable measure of the expert’s methodology. We further conclude that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment. We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Supreme Court |
