SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Henley vs. State
01S01-9703-CC-00056

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

State vs. Hall
03S01-9701-CR-00010

State vs. Hall
03S01-9701-CR-00010

State vs. Dixon
03S01-9704-CR-00043

State vs. Dixon
03S01-9704-CR-00043

Tennessee Municipal League vs. Brook Thompson
01S01-9711-CH-00242
The ruling listed above is the Order regarding the "Tiny Towns" legislation. The full opinion will be published at a later date.

Kenneth McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
01S01-9605-CV-00095
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam

The defendant has filed a petition for rehearing of this appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39. We have considered all of the arguments raised in the petition and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied.
 

State of Tennessee vs. Glenn Bernard Mann - Concurring
02-S-01-9609-CC-00077
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley

In this capital case, the defendant, Glenn Bernard Mann, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, aggravated rape and aggravated burglary.¹ In the sentencing hearing, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death;” and (2) “[t]he murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in committing burglary.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (7) (1991). Finding that the two aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. 

State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland - Concurring/Dissenting
02S01-9603-CR-00032
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

I concur, in principle, with Justice Reid’s dissent. I would, however, increase the pool of similar cases to include all cases in which a trial judge’s report is required by Supreme Court
Rule 12.1 The majority chose to exclude from the proportionality review pool all cases in which the State did not seek the death penalty and all cases in which no capital sentencing hearing was
held. In my view, this exclusion discourages a more meaningful proportionality analysis.

State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland
02S01-9603-CR-00032
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

In this capital case, the defendant, Andre S. Bland, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, attempted aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, and attempted first degree murder.1 In the sentencing hearing, the jury found one aggravating circumstance: “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(I)(5) (1991 Repl. & 1996 Supp.). Finding that the aggravating circumstance outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution.

State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland - Concurring/Dissenting
02S01-9603-CR-00032
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

The issues before the Court and sufficiency of the evidence and comparative propottionality of the sentence of death. I agree with the majority that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of premeditation, that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of torture (i.e. the "infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while he or she remains conscious"), and the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating circumstances. However, I would find that the sentence of death is disproportionate.

Tennessee Municipal League vs. Brook Thompson
01S01-9711-CH-00242
The ruling listed above is the Order regarding the "Tiny Towns" legislation. The full opinion will be published at a later date.

State vs. Yeargan
01S01-9604-CC-00080

State vs. Yeargan
01S01-9604-CC-00080

Carl Nelson vs. Harold Eugene Martin & Jack W. Gammon
02S01-9604-CV-00036

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

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

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

State vs. Utley
01S01-9604-CR-00120

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.

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

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

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.