SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

McIlvain vs. Russell Stover Candies
01S01-9709-CH-00208

Ramsey vs. Town of Oliver Springs
03S01-9807-CH-00073

Long vs. Tri-Con Industries
01S01-9708-CV-00176

Sullivan vs. Baptist Memorial Hospital
02S01-9804-CV-00032

State of Tennessee v. James R. Lemacks - Dissenting
01S01-9803-CR-00049
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

Because the opinion filed by the Court of Criminal Appeals states the view I take, I respectfully dissent from the view held by the majority of my colleagues and would adopt the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

State of Tennessee v. Jerry Wayne Edison
03S01-9803-CC-00022
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

We granted this Tenn. R. App. P. 11 appeal to determine the appropriate standard of review of a trial court’s decision to admit a breath-alcohol test result under State v. Sensing, 843
S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting the test result of the defendant, Jerry Wayne Edison.1 We affirm the judgment of the intermediate appellate court and conclude that a trial court’s Sensing decision must be presumed correct on appeal unless the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary.

State of Tennessee v. Donald Ray Middlebrooks
01S01-9802-CR-00017
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ann Lacy Johns

This case is before us for automatic review of the Court of Criminal Appeals’
affirmance of a death sentence imposed upon Donald Ray Middlebrooks in a
Davidson County resentencing hearing for first degree murder.

State of Tennessee v. James R. Lemacks
01S01-9803-CC-00049
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

We granted this appeal by the State of Tennessee to address the issue of jury unanimity in cases where the State relies on alternative theories of guilt to convict an accused under a single count indictment. In this case, the appellee, James Lemacks, was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). The trial court instructed the jury that it could convict the appellee of DUI based upon evidence that he operated his automobile while intoxicated or that he was criminally responsible for allowing his friend, Clinton Sanchez, to drive the automobile while intoxicated. The jury returned a general verdict convicting the appellee of DUI.

Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079

Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

Guliano vs. Cleo
02S01-9801-CV-00002

State vs. Buggs
02S01-9803-CR-00020
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

Marcus vs. Marcus
02S01-9804-CH-00036

Hawkins vs. Hart
01S01-9811-CV-00199
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

State vs. Rogers
02S01-9804-CR-00035

Taylor vs. State
02S01-9806-CR-00054

State vs. Meyer
03S01-9812-CR-00140

Morris vs. State
01S01-9804-BC-00076

State vs. Brown
02S01-9710-CR-00085

Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
01S01-9609-CV-00196

Matthews vs. Pickett County, Tennessee
01S01-9801-FD-00005
Trial Court Judge: David A. Nelson

Tommy L. King v. State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting
01S01-9707-CC-00146
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson

I agree with the majority that the jury’s reliance on the felony murder aggravating circumstance in this case violated article I, § 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and that a harmless error analysis must be applied under our decision in State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993). I disagree, however, with both the majority’s application of the Howell analysis and its conclusion.

State of Tennessee v. Ronnie William (Billy) Taylor - Concurring
02SO1-9704-CC-00028
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dick Jerman

We granted this appeal by Ronnie William (Billy) Taylor, the appellant, in  order to address issues pertinent to the sentences he received in the trial  court. In our review, however, we notice as plain error an invalid conviction  that was imposed upon appellant for an offense that was not charged in the indictment.1 Accordingly, for the reasons outlined below, we vacate the invalid burglary conviction and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Tommy L. King v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9707-CC-00146
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge James Weatherford

In this post-conviction capital case, we granted this appeal to determine whether the jury’s reliance on an invalid felony murder aggravating circumstance was harmless error. Upon review, we hold that the jury's consideration of the invalid felony murder aggravating circumstance was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the strength of the remaining valid aggravating circumstances and the relative weakness or absence of any mitigating circumstances. The Court of Criminal Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's dismissal of the post-conviction petition is affirmed.

Deborah Lorraine Brooks v. Rickey Lemar Brooks
03S01-9804-CV-00034
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Earl G. Murphy

We granted this appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in their determinations of the amount of child support to be paid by the child’s father. Although both the trial court and the Court of Appeals determined that the total monthly payment should be increased from four hundred dollars ($400.00) to six hundred fifty dollars ($650.00), each court reached its conclusion upon different reasons. We conclude that both courts erred and that the base amount of child support should have been $1,241.00 per month. In addition, Mr. Brooks shall pay the child's private education expenses per the parties agreement.