SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

03S01-9512-CC-00133
03S01-9512-CC-00133

State vs. Charles A. Pinkham, Jr.
02S01-9611-CR-00096

Hutton vs. Johnson
01S01-9705-CH-00101
Trial Court Judge: James L. Weatherford

03A01-9704-CV-00111
03A01-9704-CV-00111

Shirley Shelburne v. Frontier Health
E2000-02551-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
Plaintiff, both individually and as next friend of her minor son, brought suit against Carter County, Frontier Health, and Woodridge Hospital for the wrongful death of her husband. The trial court granted summary judgment to Frontier and Woodridge. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Frontier and Woodridge could not be held vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of their employee because he was entitled to immunity as a state employee. We granted review to determine whether summary judgment was properly granted in light of our decision in Johnson v. LeBonheur Children's Medical Center, 74 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. 2002). We hold that Johnson governs the present case and that Frontier and Woodridge are not immune from liability for the acts or omissions of their immune employee. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Evans & Arnold vs. Board of Paroles, et. al.
01S01-9610-CH-00210

Hunter vs. Brown
03S01-9607-CV-00070

State of Tennessee v. Bobby Ed Begley
01S01-9607-CR-00134
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Wyatt Randall, Jr.

We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal in order to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion1 in admitting testimony concerning the results of a certain method of DNA analysis. While we have previously considered the admission of the results of DNA analysis using the “restriction fragment length polymorphism” (RFLP) method, we address for the first time the admission of testimony regarding DNA analysis using the “polymerase chain reaction” (PCR) method. PCR is to be distinguished from RFLP, the method more statistically precise and firmly established in both the scientific and legal community. After a jury-out hearing, the trial court admitted expert testimony about the results of the PCR analysis performed on the defendant’s clothing, and the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination.

State of Tennessee v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr.
01S01-9701-CC-00005
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge James L. Weatherford

We accepted the State’s application for review in this cause in order to determine the validity of an indictment which charged aggravated rape.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals held the indictment void and the subsequent conviction invalid because the language of the indictment failed to allege a culpable mental state.

State of Tennessee v. Larry Wayne Stokes
01S01-9701-CC-00006
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

 Larry Wayne Stokes, the appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Williamson County of rape of a child, in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-522 (Supp. 1995). He currently serves a fifteen-year sentence in the Department of Correction.

William Warren vs. Estate of Jerry N. Kirk,Deceased
02S01-9602-CV-00006

Linda & Wilburn Grantham vs. Jackson-Madison Co General Hospital
02S01-9611-CV-00095
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

Kelly Carter vs. United Parcel Service et. al.
01S01-9605-FD-00090

Bean vs. McWherter
01S01-9607-CH-00132

State vs. Sheline
03S01-9701-CR-00002

Carter vs. State
03S01-9612-CR-00119

Stanbury vs. Bacardi
01S01-9609-CV-00178

State vs. Murphy
01S01-9602-CC-00035

State of Tennessee v. Betty D. Levandowski
03S01-9611-CR-000116
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

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.

State of Tennessee v. Merlin Eugene Shuck
03S01-9607-CC-00071
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper

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.

State vs. Dubose
01S01-9602-CC-00029
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

State vs. Gordon
01S01-9605-CC-00084

McDaniel vs. CSX Transportation, Inc.
01S01-9605-CV-00095

William D. Carroll vs. Fred Raney, Warden
02S01-9610-CC-00086

State vs. Dubose
01S01-9602-CC-00029