State of Tennessee v. Andrew Thomas, et al. - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur in the conclusion of the majority that Thomas’s conviction should be affirmed. As to the sentence of death, however, I respectfully dissent. As I have previously expressed in a long line of dissents, I believe that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and is proportionate imposition of the death penalty. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) (1995 Supp.). I have consistently expressed my displeasure with the current protocol since the time of its adoption in State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). See State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 529 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d, 42, 68 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurringand dissenting); State v. Davis, 141 S.W.3d 600, 632 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Berry, 141 S.W.3d 549, 589 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Holton, 126 S.W.3d 845, 872 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 629-36 (Tenn. 2003) (Birch, J., dissenting); State v. Carter, 114 S.W.3d 895, 910-11 (Tenn. 2003) (Birch, J., dissenting); State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 288-89 (Tenn. 2002) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447, 467-68 (Tenn. 2002) (Birch, J., dissenting); State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 852 (Tenn. 2002) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291, 320-22 (Tenn. 2002) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 431-32 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 720 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 167 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., dissenting); State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1, 23-24 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Keen, 31 S.W.3d 196, 233-34 (Tenn. 2000) (Birch, J., dissenting). As previously discussed, I believe that the problem with the current proportionality analysis is threefold: (1) the proportionality test is overbroad, (2) the pool of cases used for comparison is inadequate, and (3) review is too subjective. These flaws seriously undermine the reliability of the current proportionality protocol. See State v. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 793-800 (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting). In my view, the current comparative proportionality protocol is woefully inadequate to protect defendants from the arbitrary or disproportionate imposition of the death penalty. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion affirming the imposition of the penalty of death. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Sawyer
The defendant, Charles Sawyer, was arrested by the police for aggravated sexual battery. Following his arrest, Sawyer made an oral statement to the police after an officer read to Sawyer an affidavit supporting the arrest warrant but before the officer advised Sawyer of his Fifth Amendment rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Sawyer filed a motion to suppress his oral statement. Based upon the nature of the facts contained in the affidavit supporting the issuance of the arrest warrant and the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention, we conclude the statement resulted from an unconstitutional custodial interrogation and therefore should be suppressed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Marshall | Supreme Court | |
Terry Ruddle Mahoney v. Nationsbank of Tennessee, N.A.
We granted review in this workers’ compensation case to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding benefits against the defendant employer where the employee was first injured and missed work while employed by a previous employer. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the trial court erred in awarding benefits against the defendant employer because the preponderance of the evidence is that the employee’s gradually-occurring injury became compensable while working for the prior employer and did not progress while working for the defendant employer. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Michael R. Moody v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Robert Moody, filed a "Motion to Correct Errors in Judgment" in which he claimed that the two sentences requiring him to register as a sexual offender are illegal. The trial court dismissed the motion, and the Court of Criminal Appeals denied Moody's request for discretionary review through the common law writ of certiorari. We conclude that the writ of certiorari is not available to review the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence and that a habeas corpus action, not a motion, is the proper procedure for collaterally attacking an illegal sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Carolyn Curtis v. G. E. Capital Modular Space, et al
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, this Court accepted certification of the following two questions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, at Greeneville: (1) In an action instituted against an employer for workers' compensation benefits and in which the employer files an answer or amended answer naming a third party as having caused all or a part of the plaintiff's injuries, does Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 extend the limitation period and allow the filing of an amended complaint against the third party named by the employer and/or other persons named as tortfeasors(s) by the third party in its answer? In the event the first question is answered in the affirmative, then the second question is posed: (2) In Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119(a), does the term "applicable statute of limitations" appearing in the phrase "or named in an amended complaint filed within the applicable statute of limitations" refer to the one year limitation period for personal injury only or to the limitation period as extended by the ninety-day "window" provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119(a)? As to the first question, we answer in the negative. We hold that because Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 applies only to cases in which comparative fault is or becomes an issue, and because workers' compensation benefits are awarded without regard to fault, section 20-1-119 may not be invoked as authority to amend a complaint in a workers' compensation action to include a claim against a third party tortfeasor that would otherwise be time-barred. Because our answer to this first question renders the second question moot, we do not address it at this time. |
Supreme Court | ||
Frank Fetzer Mills, Jr., et al. v. Luis L. Wong, M.D., et al.
The plaintiffs in this medical malpractice action filed their complaint approximately three weeks after the three-year medical malpractice statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116(a)(3) (1980), had expired. The defendants moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. In response, the plaintiffs argued that their action should not be time-barred because the primary plaintiff was mentally incompetent during most of the repose period. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that due process requires tolling of the statute of repose during the period of a plaintiff’s mental incompetency. In support of their contention, the plaintiffs relied on Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000), and other precedents which provide for tolling of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a) (2003), on the basis of a petitioner’s mental incompetency. The lower courts granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm. We hold that due process does not require tolling of the medical malpractice statute of repose during the period of a plaintiff’s mental incompetency. The legislature has the constitutional power to place reasonable temporal limitations on rights of action in tort. By contrast, a post-conviction petition, despite its procedurally civil nature, is available only to a person who is in custody following a criminal conviction and sentence; such a petition thus implicates life and liberty interests in a way that materially differentiates it from civil actions. Therefore, the precedents which require tolling for mental incompetence in the context of post-conviction petitions are inapposite to questions of tolling statutes of repose in civil tort actions. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin L. Lawrence
We granted permission to appeal in this case pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 to determine whether the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the investigation of a shooting death. To resolve this issue, we must determine whether the investigators had probable cause to arrest the defendant and whether the delay in taking him before a magistrate for a judicial determination of probable cause should independently require the exclusion of the evidence obtained during the first few hours of his detention. Because we are of the opinion that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant, we conclude that the evidence recovered at the scene was not subject to suppression. As to the defendant’s claim of “unreasonable delay,” it is obvious that the defendant was not taken before a magistrate for a judicial determination of probable cause within a constitutionally reasonable time. However, the evidence the defendant sought to suppress was obtained during the first few hours of his arrest. Thus, these evidentiary items were not tainted by exploitation of the constitutional violation and are not, therefore, subject to suppression. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Faulkner
The defendant, Robert Faulkner, was convicted of the first degree premeditated murder of his wife, Shirley Faulkner. The jury imposed a sentence of death based upon the aggravating circumstance that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more violent felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2) (1997). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On automatic appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(a)(1) (2003), we designated the following issues for oral argument:1 1) whether the trial court improperly excluded testimony at the guilt phase regarding Faulkner’s “diminished capacity”; 2) whether the trial court committed harmful error in its instructions defining “intentionally” and “knowingly”; 3) whether the failure of the verdict form to recite that the jury found the aggravating circumstance “beyond a reasonable doubt” rendered the verdict invalid; and 4) whether the sentence of death is disproportionate or invalid under the mandatory review of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1) (2003). Having carefully reviewed these issues and the issue of photographic evidence raised by Faulkner, we find no merit to his arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Faulkner - concurring/dissenting opinion
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Detrick Cole
The defendant, Detrick Cole, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder. The jury imposed a sentence of death upon finding that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been previously convicted of “one (1) or more felonies, other than the present charge, whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person,” and that this aggravating circumstance outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The case was docketed in this Court. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(1). After considering the briefs and the record, this Court entered an order requesting that the parties address at oral argument the following four issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the trial court required the defendant to submit to fingerprinting in the presence of the jury; (3) whether, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), the jury rather than the judge must determine whether the statutory elements of prior convictions used to support the (i)(2)aggravating circumstance involve the use of violence to the person; and (4) whether the factors for mandatory review in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (c)(1) require reversal of the sentence of death. After carefully and thoroughly considering the issues in light of the record and the relevant authority, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Detrick Cole - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Amy Butterworth, et al. v. John Butterworth, et al.
We granted this appeal to determine whether the doctrine of parental immunity bars recovery when a son is injured at his father’s place of employment. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in creating a bright-line rule prohibiting the application of the doctrine of parental immunity when the injury resulted from employment-related activities. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we hold that the motion for summary judgment was improperly granted by the trial court. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this respect and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Dyer | Supreme Court | |
John Doe 1 ex rel. Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville, et al.
In two separate civil actions, the plaintiffs, John Doe 1, Jane Doe 1 and John Doe 2 brought claims of reckless infliction of emotional distress against the defendant, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville. The lawsuits were consolidated for certain pretrial purposes and also for purposes of appellate review. The trial court denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel the defendant to provide answers to discovery and ultimately granted the defendant summary judgment as to all plaintiffs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, holding that reckless infliction of emotional distress must be based on conduct that was directed at the plaintiff, affirmed summary judgment for the defendant. The Court of Appeals also declined to consider the plaintiffs' appeal of the partial denial of their motion to compel, regarding the issue as moot. We granted the plaintiffs' application for permission to appeal. After carefully considering the relevant authority, we hold that to be actionable, reckless infliction of emotional distress need not be based upon conduct that was directed at a specific person or that occurred in the presence of the plaintiff. Applying this holding, we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to summary judgment. Furthermore, in light of our holding, we vacate the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to compel. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including reconsideration of the plaintiffs' discovery requests. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Angela D. (Fezell) Taylor v. Douglas Fezell
We granted permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine whether the retained earnings of an S corporation should be treated as income to the sole or majority shareholder of the corporation for the purpose of calculating child support in accordance with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. We conclude that absent a showing that the retained earnings are excessive or that an obligor is actually manipulating his or her income, the retained earnings of an S corporation should not be imputed as income to the sole or majority shareholder in calculating a child support obligation. Because there was no showing in this case that the retained earnings were excessive or that the obligor-father manipulated the funds of the S corporation to reduce his child support obligation, we hold that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred by imputing to him as income the company's retained earnings. Further, we hold that the lower courts erred by failing to include the economic value of the obligor-father's company car in its calculation of income. Finally, we hold that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred by not granting the obligee-mother's petition to have the obligor pay her attorney's fees in this cause. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for a determination of child support that is consistent with this opinion and for a determination of attorney's fees. |
Greene | Supreme Court | |
Torian Benson a.k.a. Marcus Terry a.k.a. Marcus Benson v. State of Tennessee - Order
The petitioner, Torian Benson, has filed a pro se petition to rehear in this case. We note that the petitioner is represented by counsel and pro se petitions are not permitted in such cases. Nevertheless, having considered the merits of the petition to rehear, it is respectfully denied. |
Lake | Supreme Court | |
Jackie Bostic v. Paul Dalton
In this workers' compensation appeal, we must determine whether the appellee, a father who supervised the construction of his daughter's residence, is required to pay workers' compensation benefits to the appellant, the employee of a subcontractor who was injured during the construction of the residence. We hold that the father is an uncompensated agent of the owner and therefore falls within the owner's exemption of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-113(f) (1999). Thus, we adopt the conclusions of the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel affirming the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Supreme Court | |
Billy Gene Gray v. Cullom Machine Tool & Die, Inc., et al.
We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the trial court erred in 1) awarding temporary total benefits, 2) apportioning liability between the employer and the Second Injury Fund, and 3) awarding 180 weeks of lump-sum benefits. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the trial court erred in awarding temporary total benefits to the employee who continued to work for the employer following his injury and then later operated his own unprofitable business. We also hold that the trial court erred in limiting the employer's liability for permanent total disability benefits to 60% of 400 weeks and in awarding 180 weeks of lump sum benefits. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Bradley | Supreme Court | |
Denny Lee Rhodes v. Capital City Insurance Company and James Farmer, Director, Department of Labor, Second Injury Fund
The issue in this case is whether an award of permanent total disability should commence when the employee reaches maximum medical improvement or on the last day that the employee is able to work due to the injury. The trial judge ordered permanent total benefits to be paid as of the day the employee last worked. The employee appealed, arguing that he was totally disabled from the time that he reached maximum medical improvement, and because he was only able to work in a limited capacity thereafter, he should be able to collect benefits for the period between his reaching maximum medical improvement and the time he ultimately stopped work. Because the employee was working during the three years at issue and because there was no evidence presented that he was unemployable in the general workforce, the evidence supports the trial court’s decision that he did not meet the statutory definition of permanent total disability until he stopped work. |
Benton | Supreme Court | |
Torian Benson a.k.a. Marcus Terry a.k.a. Marcus Benson v. State of Tennessee
This case comes before us on petitions for habeas corpus relief. Although several arguments are |
Lake | Supreme Court | |
David Stupp, et al. v. Phillips Auto Body, LLC and First American Insurance Company, et al.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court determined that the plaintiff sustained a 25% vocational impairment to the body as a whole. The defendant asserts that: 1) the plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof of permanent injury; 2) the trial court erred in finding plaintiff had an operative disk lesion which necessitated surgery; 3) the trial court erred in not granting defendant's motion for additional facts or to amend judgement; and 4) the trial court erred in finding that Dr. Anthony Segal's charges were reasonable and necessary and in granting plaintiff's motion for discretionary costs. Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred when it awarded plaintiff a 25% disability impairment to the body as a whole, urging that the award should have been higher. We agree with the position of the plaintiff, and for the reasons set forth below, we modify the judgment of the trial court to award a forty-five percent (45%) vocational disability to the body as a whole. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
William A. Cohn v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
This is a direct appeal in an attorney discipline case. For seven years, the appellant, an experienced bankruptcy attorney, collected post-confirmation attorney’s fees from his debtor clients using a creditors’ procedure which the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee found improper. Following the bankruptcy court’s ruling, the Board of Professional Responsibility (“BPR”) filed a petition for discipline alleging that the appellant had violated a number of ethical rules. A BPR hearing panel agreed and ordered a public censure, disgorgement of certain fees, and suspension until such time as disgorgement was made. Both the attorney and the Board appealed to the chancery court, which affirmed the public censure, modified the disgorgement order, and reversed the suspension. Both parties appealed to this Court. After our review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the chancery court properly affirmed the hearing panel’s findings with regard to the appellant’s violation of the disciplinary rules and that it correctly required disgorgement of post-confirmation attorney’s fees, but that it erred in declining to impose a suspension. Accordingly, we affirm the chancery court’s judgment in part, but we modify the judgment to vacate the public censure and instead impose a ninety-day suspension. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Michael Wayne Howell v. State of Tennessee
This case comes before us on a motion to reopen a petition for post-conviction relief. The |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Michael Wayne Howell v. State of Tennessee - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Michael Wayne Howell v. State of Tennessee - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen L. Denton
The defendant, a physician, was charged in three separate indictments with a total of twenty sexual offenses involving eleven different victims. The counts charged in the indictments were alleged to have occurred over a time span of six years. The trial court denied the defendant's pre-trial motion to sever the counts for separate trials and granted the State's motion to consolidate all three indictments for a single trial. The defendant was subsequently found guilty of one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, six counts of sexual battery, and three counts of assault. He was acquitted on three counts of rape and three counts of sexual battery. The defendant then presented several issues on appeal, including: (1) that the trial court erred in denying the motion to sever the offenses; and (2) that the defendant was improperly convicted of sexual battery by an authority figure. The Court of Criminal Appeals held, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying the motion to sever. However, the Court found this error to be harmless and therefore affirmed the convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals also held that the defendant's conviction for sexual battery by an authority figure was proper as a physician fell within the ambit of the applicable statute. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that the failure to sever the counts against the defendant was reversible error, and therefore we reverse the convictions. Further, we hold that a physician is not an authority figure as contemplated under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-527 (2003) and therefore the defendant's conviction under this statute was improper. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case remanded for new trials. |
McMinn | Supreme Court |
