SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

State vs. Beauregard
W1997-00060-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
In this appeal, we consider whether the constitutional principle of either double jeopardy or due process is violated and therefore bars separate convictions for both rape and incest when the offenses arise from a single act committed against the same victim. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the defendant's convictions for rape and incest. After our review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the separate convictions for rape and incest did not violate double jeopardy principles under the United States or Tennessee Constitutions because the offenses require different elements, different evidence, and have different purposes. We also conclude that the convictions for rape and incest did not violate due process under the United States or Tennessee Constitutions because neither offense was "essentially incidental" to the other. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Lipscomb vs. Doe
W1997-00132-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

Lipscomb vs. Doe
W1997-00132-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

State vs. Chalmers
W1997-00174-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

State vs. Chalmers
W1997-00174-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

State vs. Keough
W1997-00201-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

State vs. Fitz
W1997-00186-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

State vs. Blackstock
E1994-00004-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

State of Tennessee v. Eric Flemming
M1997-0073-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

We granted the appeal in this case to decide (1) whether fists and feet are deadly weapons
under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(5)(B); and (2) whether the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on criminal responsibility for facilitation of especially aggravated robbery and aggravated robbery was reversible error. We conclude that fists and feet are not deadly weapons under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(5)(B). In addition, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on facilitation of aggravated robbery and especially aggravated robbery. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Permission to Appeal; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed
 

Federated Insurance Company v. Francis I. Lethcoe, et al.
E1997-00048-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Earl H. Henley

This is an appeal from the Chancery Court for McMinn County which, pursuant to Tennessee Rule
of Civil Procedure 60.02(5), modified a judgment that was previously entered in accord with a
settlement agreement between the parties. The appellants appealed and contended that the trial court improperly modified the judgment and reduced the benefits they were to receive according to the agreement. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the appellants filed a motion for full review by this Court to determine whether a party can seek modification of a workers’ compensation judgment for a fixed sum to be paid periodically almost two years after entry of judgment. We hold that where a party agrees to settle a workers’ compensation claim, and the trial court approves the settlement, the settling party is generally not entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60.02(5). Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals panel and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Momon vs. State
E1996-00007-SC-R11-PC

Momon vs. State
E1996-00007-SC-R11-PC

American Justice Ins. Reciprocal vs. Hutchison, et al
M1999-00672-SC-R23-CQ
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III

State vs. Sledge
W1994-00005-SC-R11-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Mccartie

Ahern (Pierotti) vs. Ahern
W1997-00233-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

Staples vs. CBL & Associates, et al
E1997-00033-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III

Staples vs. CBL & Associates, et al
E1997-00033-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III

Bryant vs. HCA Health Services of TN
M1998-00770-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Robert Glen Coe v. State of Tennessee
M1999-01313-SC-DPE-PD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.

In Heck van Tran v. State,1 a majority of this Court established the protocol that an inmate sentenced to death must follow to assert a common law and constitutional challenge to his or her competence to be executed. In the context of a Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, I identified three components of the protocol which, when implemented, would each produce an unconstitutional result. Two are most significant: (1) use of the protocol would permit the execution of inmates who are, due to mental defect or disease, unable to consult with and assist their counsel; and (2) use of the protocol would deprive inmates of the right to have the ultimate issue–-competence to be executed-- determined by a jury of their peers.

W1999-01313-SC-DPE-PD
W1999-01313-SC-DPE-PD

Gleaves vs. Checker Cab Transit
M1997-00183-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.

McCoy vs. T.T.C. Illinois Inc.
E1999-01378-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III

Smith vs. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co.
E1998-00306-SC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III

McConnell vs. State
M1997-00163-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker

State vs. Walker
M1996-00046-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: James L. Weatherford