Nashville, Tenn. - On Wednesday, December 4, 2024, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee, as part of the Court’s SCALES program. SCALES, which stands for Supreme Court Advancing Legal Education for Students, is an initiative launched by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1995 to educate high school students about the Tennessee legal system and the functions of the judicial branch. The SCALES program provides students with the unique opportunity to hear oral arguments for an actual Tennessee Supreme Court case in a nearby community. SCALES has provided more than 40,000 students from more than 500 high schools the ability to witness the Tennessee Supreme Court in action.
“All of the Justices on the Court are looking forward to our SCALES docket at Austin Peay,” said Chief Justice Holly Kirby. “For the students, it will demonstrate civics in action. For the Justices, it gives us an opportunity to personally engage with students, educators, community leaders, local lawyers, and judges. The SCALES programs are always an enjoyable and rewarding experience for members of the Court and students alike. We are grateful to the Clarksville community, the local educators, the local lawyers and judges, law enforcement, and local volunteers who are facilitating this event.”
The proceedings will begin at 9:00 a.m. CST on December 4 and will be livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/user/TNCourts/featured.
Here are the cases the Court and the students will hear:
• Theresa Thompson Locke et al. v. Jason D. Aston, M.D. et al. – Plaintiffs/Appellants Teresa and Randy Locke filed a health care liability action alleging that Defendants/Appellees negligently performed a surgery on Ms. Locke’s colon. While the case was pending, Defendants hired a private investigator to take surveillance videos of the Plaintiffs in an attempt to show that Ms. Locke was exaggerating her injuries. Thereafter, the Defendants expressed their intention to use some of the surveillance footage at trial. The Plaintiffs sought to obtain all the private investigator’s surveillance videos, including those that the Defendants did not intend to use at trial. The trial court rejected the Plaintiffs’ request under the work-product doctrine, requiring the Defendants to produce only the videos they intend to use at trial. The Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in shielding the surveillance videos from discovery and affirmed the trial court’s decision to limit production to the videos that the Defendants intended to use at trial. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether a litigant has a “substantial need” under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(3) to obtain surveillance footage collected in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial when the party who conducted the surveillance designates some, but not all, of the surveillance footage for use at trial.
• State of Tennessee v. Ambreia Washington – In the early hours of November 6, 2020, Jackson Police Officer Joshua Keller was dispatched to a single-vehicle auto accident. Officer Keller approached the vehicle to check on the unconscious driver, Defendant Ambreia Washington. As the Defendant began to wake up, Officer Keller noticed a handgun lying on the passenger seat and directed him to exit the car through the driver’s side. Without providing Miranda warnings, Officer Keller asked the Defendant if he was a convicted felon. The Defendant replied that he was. Officer Keller began to detain the Defendant, but the Defendant attempted to flee. Officer Keller used a taser to subdue the Defendant and placed him in custody before seizing the handgun. A criminal background check later confirmed the Defendant was a convicted felon. The Defendant was charged with four counts of being a felon in possession of a handgun (Class B felony), driving on a revoked license – second offense (Class A misdemeanor), and resisting arrest (Class B misdemeanor). The Defendant moved to suppress his admission to Officer Keller that he was a convicted felon and the seizure of the handgun. After a hearing, the trial court concluded Officer Keller had a duty to investigate pursuant to the community caretaking doctrine. The court granted the motion to suppress the defendant’s admission but denied the motion to suppress the handgun because the handgun was in plain view. The jury convicted the Defendant as charged. The trial court merged the four firearms counts and imposed an effective fifteen-year sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the seizure of the handgun was permissible under one or more exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, such as the plain view doctrine, the community caretaking doctrine, and/or the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.
Media members planning to attend oral arguments should review Supreme Court Rule 30 and file any required requests to:
Samantha Fisher
Communications Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Samantha.fisher@tncourts.gov
###