We granted this appeal to determine the following two issues: 1) whether double jeopardy bars multiple convictions for criminal contempt based on violations of an order of protection and 2) whether domestic violence counseling may be imposed as part of the sentence for criminal contempt. After finding the defendant guilty of six counts of criminal contempt, the trial court's sentence consisted of 1) ten days in jail for each act of contempt to be served consecutively and 2) forty-five weeks of domestic violence counseling. A new order of protection was issued. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence supported only one conviction for criminal contempt and that the trial court lacked the authority to impose counseling as part of a sentence for criminal contempt. After reviewing the record and authority, we hold that double jeopardy does not bar multiple convictions for criminal contempt and that the evidence supports three convictions in this case. We further hold that although the legislature has not specifically authorized domestic violence counseling as a sentence for criminal contempt, the trial court properly imposed the requirement as part of a new order of protection.
This cause is before the Court on the petition for rehearing filed by the respondent, Michael
H. Sneed. The crux of the petition is Sneed’s request for a period of thirty days within which to
“wind down [his] practice and to prepare for the transition of any remaining cases to substitute
counsel.”
Davidson
Supreme Court
Leslie vs. State M1998-00585-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
We granted review in this post-conviction case to determine whether the trial court erred by allowing the appellant's appointed attorneys to withdraw and refusing to appoint new counsel. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not err either by allowing the appointed attorneys to withdraw or by refusing to appoint new counsel because the appellant had abused the post-conviction process. We conclude, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by allowing counsel to withdraw without a hearing and failing to appoint new counsel. We therefore reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and remand the case to the trial court for the appointment of counsel and proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Davidson
Supreme Court
Stewart vs. State M1998-00304-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
In this case, we determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission properly asserted jurisdiction pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 9-8-307(a)(1)(E) and -307(a)(1)(F) for the alleged negligence of a state highway patrol officer in failing to properly control county police authorities at an arrest scene. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's exercise of jurisdiction, and the State requested permission to appeal on the issue of whether the Claims Commission properly asserted jurisdiction and whether the plaintiff, who stepped into the road before being hit by the truck, was fifty percent (50%) or more at fault for his accident. We hold that the Claims Commission lacked jurisdiction in this case under either section 9-8-307(a)(1)(E) or section 9-8-307(a)(1)(F), and because the Claims Commission possessed no jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims, we decline to reach the issue of whether the plaintiff was more than fifty percent (50%) at fault for his accident. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals finding proper jurisdiction is reversed, and the plaintiff's claim against the State is dismissed.
Supreme Court
Sneed vs. Bd. of Professional Responsibility M1999-01588-SC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This case is before the Court on an appeal of right from the judgment of the Chancery Court of Davidson County suspending Michael H. Sneed, the appellant, from the practice of law for six months together with other sanctions. Sneed contends that the trial court erred in imposing discipline and that the six-month suspension is too harsh a sanction. Because we conclude that the trial court had the authority to impose sanctions and that the sanctions imposed are fair and proportionate in light of the entire record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Davidson
Supreme Court
State vs. Carruthers and Montgomery W1997-00097-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey
Shelby
Supreme Court
State vs. Carruthers and Montgomery W1997-00097-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey
Shelby
Supreme Court
State vs. Scott M1997-00088-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The appellant in this case was arrested and charged with the rape and aggravated sexual battery of a nine-year-old child in Davidson County. Prior to trial, the State conducted various types of DNA analysis on several pieces of evidence, and the appellant, who is indigent, requested state-funded expert assistance in the field of DNA analysis to prepare his defense. The trial court denied the appellant's motion for expert assistance and declined to hold a hearing to establish the reliability of mitochondrial DNA analysis. The trial court also held that the State properly established the chain of custody for certain hairs removed from the victim during her physical examination. The appellant was found guilty by a jury on both charges, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. On appeal to this Court, we address the following issues: (1) whether the appellant was entitled to expert assistance in the field of DNA analysis under State v. Barnett, 909 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. 1995) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to hold a pre-trial hearing on the reliability of mitochondrial DNA analysis; and (3) whether the State's failure to establish a chain of custody as to certain hairs retrieved from the victim was error. For the reasons given herein, we hold that although the appellant was not entitled to a pre-trial hearing on the reliability of mitochondrial DNA analysis, he was entitled to receive expert assistance in the field of DNA analysis. We also hold that the State failed to properly establish the chain of custody of the hair samples. We reverse the appellant's convictions and sentences, and we remand this case to the Davidson County Criminal Court for a new trial on both counts of the indictment.
Davidson
Supreme Court
Bryant vs. Genco Stamping & Mfg. Co., Inc. M1999-01762-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
The sole issue in this case is whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(a) applies to a pre-existing permanent mental disability. The employee suffered a work-related shoulder injury, treatment for which resulted in aggravation of a pre-existing mental disorder. The trial court concluded that the previous mental disability is included within the purview of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(a). The court thereby found both the employer and the Second Injury Fund liable for disability benefits. On appeal, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's apportionment of liability to the Second Injury Fund, holding that section -208(a) does not contemplate pre-existing mental disorders. We affirm the judgment of the Special Appeals Panel and find the employer liable for the full amount of benefits due the employee.
This workers' compensation case presents two issues for review concerning the merits of the employee's claim for benefits. The first is whether this action is barred by the statute of limitations. The second is whether the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the employee's injury was work-related. The trial court ruled that the statute of limitations had expired, and it also addressed the merits and found that the employee failed to prove that his injury was work-related. We hold that the statute of limitations had not expired, and we further hold that the trial court's dismissal of the employee's claim should be affirmed on the merits because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the employee's injury was not work-related. In addition to the merits of this suit, we also granted review to determine the legality of the trial court's practice of referring workers' compensation cases to a clerk and master for trial. We hold that the proper procedure for appointing a special/substitute judge was not followed; however, reversal is not required because the Clerk and Master was acting as a de facto judge.
We granted the State's appeal to consider whether the defendant's federal or state constitutional right of confrontation was violated by the admission into evidence of surveillance photographs taken at the scene of the robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals decided that the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was violated and that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, they reversed the trial court's judgment of conviction.
The Court has accepted for decision two questions of law certified by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to Rule 23, Supreme Court Rules, which questions are as follows:
( l ) Whether the tort of negligent misrepresentation applies only to professinals and others who specialize in providing information as a service; and not to commercial entities or businesses which allegedly supply misleading information for the guidance of others in their business transactions; and
(2) Whether a party alleging negligent misrepresentation, in order to recover 'economic losses," must be in privity of contract with the defendant. The decision of the Court is that liability for the tort of negligent misrepresentation is not limited to 'professionals'; however, the record in this case does not establish the essentials of that cause of action.
QUESTION CERTIFIED Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules,1 we have accepted a question certified to us by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The bankruptcy court has asked: Which of the following is the correct interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E): (1) Once asserted in any judicial proceeding, the exemption in alimony described in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective with respect to all subsequent executions, seizures or attachments of alimony; or (2) The exemption in alimony described in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective only if claimed in each judicial proceeding in which execution, seizure or attachment of alimony is sought. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the alimony exemption set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 26-2-111(1)(E) is effective only if claimed in each judicial proceeding in which execution, seizure, or attachment of alimony is sought.
In this workers’ compensation action, the employer, Famous Hospitality, Inc., defendant-appellant, has appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County finding that the employee, Debra Lambert, plaintiff-appellee, sustained a 60 percent permanent impairment to the whole body due to a workrelated shoulder injury. The trial court also directed the employer to pay various medical and litigation related expenses incurred by the employee, but did not require the employer to pay for future medical treatment by doctors that had been selected by the employee and who had treated her before trial. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, upon reference for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5), affirmed the trial court. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for full Court review of the Panel’s decision pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-225(e)(5)(B). We granted the motion to determine whether the employee should have been authorized to seek future medical treatment, at the employer’s expense, from doctors selected by her who had treated her injuries. After carefully examining the record before us and considering the relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment except to the extent that the judgment does not authorize future medical treatment by the employee’s treating physicians at the employer’s expense.
Shelby
Supreme Court
State vs. Garrison E1997-00045-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham
The defendant, John C. Garrison, was convicted by a jury of solicitation to commit first degree murder. In this appeal, he raises two issues: (1) whether trial counsel's failure to communicate a plea bargain offer from the State is per se prejudicial to the extent necessary to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); and (2) whether the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct the jury that the "request," as used in the statutory definition of the offense of solicitation, must be intentional. After a thorough consideration of the record and a full review of the authorities, we conclude that trial counsel's failure to communicate a plea bargain offer does not demonstrate, alone, prejudice sufficient to satisfy the second prong of Strickland. We conclude also that the trial court's omission of certain required language from the jury instruction constitutes harmless error. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, reversed and the case is dismissed.
Bledsoe
Supreme Court
State vs. Coley M1997-00116-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Supreme Court
White vs. Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc. E1999-02023-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
We granted permission to appeal in this case to address whether a private employer may be held liable for the negligent actions of an off-duty police officer who was hired by the employer for private security purposes. In the circuit court, the defendant employer moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' wrongful death action for failure to state a claim, and the motion was granted by the trial judge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the actions of the off-duty officer were taken in furtherance of his official duties as a peace officer, and therefore, the defendant employer could not be held liable for the officer's negligent actions. After reviewing the complaint in this case, along with the applicable legal authority, we hold that the complaint does state a claim against the defendant employer for the negligence of the off-duty officer. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Knox County Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Knox
Supreme Court
Edgar Doyle, et al vs. Charles Frost, M.D., et al W1998-00391-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
In this appeal, the plaintiffs contest the trial court's overruling of a motion to amend their complaint to add the Jackson-Madison General Hospital District, a governmental entity, as a party defendant. At issue is the scope of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03, which allows the filing date of certain amendments to a pleading to "relate back" to the date of the filing of the original pleading. We are asked to determine whether Rule 15.03 applies to governmental entities. We conclude that it does and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Hardeman
Supreme Court
State vs. Maurice Shaw W1998-00503-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
We granted this appeal to decide two issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice and to support the defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver and (2) whether the defendant was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice and to support the defendant's conviction and that the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we affirm the result reached by the Court of Criminal Appeals upon the separate grounds stated herein.
Tipton
Supreme Court
Memphis Housing Authority vs. Tara Thompson W1998-00108-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
The appellee, Memphis Housing Authority brought this unlawful detainer action seeking to evict the appellant, tenant Tara Thompson, after drugs were discovered on the father of her child while he was inside her apartment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellee, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the lease agreement imposes strict liability upon the appellant for the drug-related criminal activity of her "guests and other persons under her control." We granted permission to appeal to consider the appropriate standard that applies when a public housing authority seeks to evict a tenant for drug-related criminal activity. This is an issue of first impression in Tennessee. After due consideration, we hold that the lease agreement imposes strict liability for drug-related criminal activity engaged in by the tenant or any household member but permits eviction for the drug related criminal activity of "guests and other persons under [the tenant's] control"only if the tenant knew or should have known of the drug-related criminal activity and failed to take reasonable steps to halt or prevent the illegal activity. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration of the appellee's motion for summary judgment under the legal standard announced herein.
Shelby
Supreme Court
State vs. Timothy Walton W1998-00329-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
Dyer
Supreme Court
State vs. Timothy Walton W1998-00329-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
Dyer
Supreme Court
State vs. Derrick Sayles W1998-00425-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett
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.
Shelby
Supreme Court
Don Culbreath vs. First Tennessee Bank W1998-00426-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
Don L. Culbreath (Culbreath) filed suit against Community First Bank (Community First) seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Culbreath alleged that Community First fraudulently refused to pay Culbreath the proceeds of a new $150,000 loan that had been agreed upon by a bank officer and Culbreath and for which Culbreath had signed a demand note and deed of trust. Instead, the bank used the deed of trust to serve as additional collateral for Culbreath's existing indebtedness to the bank. Prior to trial, Community First merged with First Tennessee Bank, N.A. (First Tennessee), and First Tennessee was substituted for Community First as the defendant in the case. The trial court found in favor of Culbreath and awarded $209,156 in compensatory damages. After a bifurcated hearing on the issue of punitive damages, the court awarded Culbreath an additional $9,000,000 in punitive damages. First Tennessee argues on appeal that as a successor corporation it should not be liable for punitive damages arising from Community First's actions. We hold that First Tennessee is liable for the compensatory damages awarded by the trial court and that it is also liable for punitive damages arising out of Community First's pre-merger conduct. However, we remand this case to the trial court for reassessment of punitive damages based upon the factors outlined in Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992).
Shelby
Supreme Court
Willie Jean Johnson vs. James Johnson W1999-01232-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
The parties' marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") divided Mr. Johnson's "military retirement benefits" to provide one half of those benefits to Ms. Johnson. After the final decree was entered, Mr. Johnson unilaterally waived a portion of his military retired pay to receive the same amount in non-taxable disability benefits. The payment of Ms. Johnson's share of the military retired pay was reduced accordingly. Ms. Johnson requested a modification of the MDA to provide for alimony in an amount equal to the reduction. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the requested relief, relying on Gilliland v. Stanley, No. 3258, 1997 WL 180587 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 16, 1997). We interpret the petition to modify as a petition to enforce the divorce decree. We hold that when an MDA divides military retirement benefits, the non-military spouse obtains a vested interest in his or her portion of those benefits as of the date of the court's decree. Any act of the military spouse that unilaterally decreases the non-military spouse's vested interest is an impermissible modification of a division of marital property and a violation of the final decree of divorce incorporating the MDA. The case is remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the decree.
