State of Tennessee v. Johnny Owens and Sarah Owens
The defendants, Johnny Owens and Sarah Owens, who are husband and wife, were convicted of aggravated child abuse by a Haywood County Circuit Court jury. Johnny Owens was convicted on one count only, and Sarah Owens was convicted on five counts. Because Johnny Owens' motion for a new trial raised only issues of the sufficiency of the evidence, we review only that issue in his appeal. Sarah Owens raises evidentiary issues and claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the "missing witness" rule, in conditioning the defendants' release from custody during trial upon Ms. Owens' withdrawal of her motion to sequester the jury, and in imposing an excessive sentence. We affirm all convictions and sentences; however, we order Sarah Owens' sentences to be served concurrently. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonius Harris
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonius Harris - Concurring
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Coleman and Sean Williams
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendants, Edward Coleman and Sean Williams, of premeditated murder, felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendants to life. The trial court merged the kidnapping convictions and sentenced Coleman and Williams to twenty-two years and eighteen years, respectively, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. In this appeal of right, both defendants raise the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion to sever; (3) whether the state failed to provide the defendants with timely discovery; and (4) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony that Williams shot a witness in this case on a prior occasion. In addition, Coleman raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding the loss of Coleman's leg, allegedly caused by the victim; and (2) whether the state knowingly presented perjured and conflicting testimony. Williams also raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victim's body; and (2) whether the state during closing argument violated the Bruton rule by referring to Coleman's incriminating statement regarding Williams. After reviewing the record, we affirm the convictions for premeditated first degree murder but reverse and dismiss the other charges based upon insufficiency of the evidence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Spurling
|
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Jackson Thorpe
The defendant, Edward Jackson Thorpe, was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident involving death. He received sentences of twenty-two year's incarceration and two year's incarceration, respectively. In this appeal he maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law we must disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Oscar Little. et al., v. Samuel Watson, et al.
Samuel and Marguerite Watson appeal the final judgment of the trial court which found that a transaction between the Watsons and the Littles involving the purchase of a house created a resulting trust. The trial court divested out of the Watsons and vested in the Littles all interest in the house after the Littles obtained new financing for the house and paid off the previous mortgage in the Watsons' name and repaid the down payment with interest. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Nations Rent of Tennessee, Inc., v. Mel Lange, et al., Forklifts Unlimited, LLC, et al., v. David Q. Wright, et al., Southern Wood Treatment Co., Inc. v. David Q. Wright, et al.
Vendors of rental equipment filed suit to collect unpaid invoices from the landowner after the contractor abandoned the job. The trial court granted recovery based upon the Mechanics’ and Materialmen’s Lien Statute and quantum meruit. We reverse for insufficient proof on the correct measure of damages. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Harper-Wittbrodt Automotive Group, LLC.,, v. Sam Teague et al.
This is an appeal from an order of summary judgment enforcing an option to purchase clause in a lease for commercial property. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding it had exercised its option under the contract. We reverse summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to the purchase price of the property. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
William Hamer, et al., v. Robert C. Harris, et al.
Homeowners sued a builder for defective construction. The trial court awarded damages for breach and attorney's fees under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. We reverse the award of attorney's fees based upon no proof of deceptive, misleading or unfair conduct by the builder. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry James Hayes v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Jerry James Hayes, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Carroll County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, dismissal of the petition is affirmed. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Haynes
The Defendant, Carlos Haynes, pled guilty to possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, a Class E felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law concerns the validity of a search warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony E. Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne L. Holt
Appellant, Wayne L. Holt, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of first degree felony murder, one count of premeditated first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. At the close of the State's case-in-chief, the trial court granted Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the count of first degree felony murder and to the count of especially aggravated robbery, but not as to the remaining count of premeditated first degree murder. Appellant was convicted by a jury of his peers of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and was sentenced, as a Range II multiple offender, to thirty (30) years imprisonment. In this appeal of right, Appellant raises five (5) issues for our review. He contends that the trial court committed reversible error in: 1) denying Appellant's pretrial motion to suppress his statement; 2) denying Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the count of premeditated first degree murder at the close of the State's case-in-chief; 3) overruling Appellant's objection to the State's closing argument; and 4) granting the State's request for a flight instruction. He further contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Corlew
The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated rape, both Class B felonies, and theft, which the trial court merged with the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for aggravated robbery and twenty years for attempted aggravated rape. The sentences were imposed consecutively. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of aggravated robbery because the victim's belief was unreasonable that the defendant was armed; the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of attempted aggravated rape because the victim learned that the defendant was, in fact, unarmed prior to the rape; and his sentence of thirty-five years is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Shane Mahoney
The defendant, Christopher Shane Mahoney, pled guilty to two counts of money laundering, a Class B felony, and one count of conspiracy to engage in money laundering, a Class C felony, receiving a three-year sentence and two eight-year sentences, and to promoting prostitution, a Class E felony, receiving a two-year sentence. All sentences were to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of eight years. He timely appealed, arguing that he was improperly sentenced, both as to the lengths of the sentences and the trial court's not placing him on probation or community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy J. Miele and wife, Linda S. Miele, Individually and D/B/A Miele Homes v. Zurich U.S.
This appeal arises from a complaint filed against the Appellants in the Chancery Court of Williamson County for negligence, breach of contract, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act relating to the construction of and failure to repair a new home. The Appellants were insured by the Appellee. Following a jury trial, the jury found that the Appellants breached the construction contract. The jury also found that the Appellants were guilty of negligence and engaged in willfully deceptive or unfair actions. The jury returned a verdict against the Appellants for $98,500.00. The Chancery Court of Williamson County doubled the damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and awarded attorney's fees and costs in the total amount of $303,248.55. The Appellee paid $48,500.00 in satisfaction of the judgment. The Appellants filed a complaint against the Appellee in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The complaint alleged that the Appellee breached its obligation to pay the balance of the judgment, acted in bad faith by denying coverage to the Appellants, and willfully and knowingly violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Appellee's motion for summary judgment. The Appellants appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellee. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Angela D. Siefker v. Gary C. Siefker
This is a post-divorce case regarding alimony and child support. The husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro, and child support for the parties' minor child. Later, the husband was terminated from his job, and his income dropped substantially. The husband fell behind in his support payments. Consequently, he sought a reduction in alimony and child support. Noting that the husband retained substantial assets, the trial court found that the husband was able to fulfill his obligations, denied his request for reduction in alimony, ordered him to pay his arrearage in alimony and child support, and awarded the wife reasonable attorney's fees. Child support was terminated because the minor child had graduated from high school by the time of the trial. The husband now appeals. We affirm, finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, in of the termination of the husband's child support obligation, the wife's continued need for alimony, and the husband's retention of significant assets. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Ronald Lebron Akins, Sr.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, this Court accepted certification of the following questions from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division: (1) Whether the following acknowledgment on a deed of trust is valid under Tennessee law: State of Tennessee County of Bradley
|
Bradley | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelvin Hooks
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Kelvin Hooks, of second degree murder and felony murder. The trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant to life on the felony murder conviction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for second degree murder and felony murder; (2) whether the state improperly questioned the defendant regarding his alibi after he withdrew a Notice of Alibi; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur R. Simpson
Defendant, Arthur R. Simpson, was indicted for the offense of aggravated assault, allegedly committed by causing the victim to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon, to wit: a handgun. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the trial court charged the jury with aggravated assault, as alleged, and also charged the jury as to lesser-included offenses of felony reckless endangerment and misdemeanor assault. The jury found Defendant guilty of felony reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to serve one year in the workhouse, which was suspended and he was placed on probation. Defendant appeals, with his sole issue being that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of felony reckless endangerment. While we find that the evidence presented would be sufficient to support a conviction for felony reckless endangerment, if that offense had been charged, we hold that under the supreme court's decision of State v. Moore, 77 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2002), felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault as charged in the indictment. Therefore, the conviction must be reversed and this case remanded for a new trial on the charge of misdemeanor assault. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Markus Lamont Willoughby v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. He argues trial counsel's failure to investigate and present an alibi defense deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel at his original trial. We find no merit to his argument and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Takeita M. Locke
The defendant, Takeita M. Locke, was tried and convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery in the death of Chuck Newman. The Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously affirmed both convictions. We granted this appeal to determine if the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser-included offenses of felony murder, namely: second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Additionally, with respect to her conviction for especially aggravated robbery, the defendant maintains that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (especially aggravated robbery), aggravated robbery, and robbery. After examining the facts and the law relevant to these issues, we hold that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide was reversible error. We also hold that the trial court's failure to instruct on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and robbery was erroneous, but such errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Takeita M. Locke
The defendant, Takeita M. Locke, was tried and convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery in the death of Chuck Newman. The Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously affirmed both convictions. We granted this appeal to determine if the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser-included offenses of felony murder, namely: second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Additionally, with respect to her conviction for especially aggravated robbery, the defendant maintains that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (especially aggravated robbery), aggravated robbery, and robbery. After examining the facts and the law relevant to these issues, we hold that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide was reversible error. We also hold that the trial court's failure to instruct on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and robbery was erroneous, but such errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Linnell Richmond
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Linnell Richmond, was found guilty by a Knox County jury of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery and two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-two years for his convictions, to be served consecutively to a federal sentence arising out of the same criminal episode. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court upon finding that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on: (1) the "natural and probable consequence rule" in relation to the charges of attempted first degree murder; and (2) robbery as a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery, and attempted robbery as a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated robbery. The State appealed to this Court, and we granted the application. We hold that: (1) it was harmless error by the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on the natural and probable consequences rule in relation to the charge of attempted first degree murder; and (2) it was likewise harmless error by the trial court in failing to instruct the jury regarding robbery as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery, and attempted robbery as a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated robbery. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the defendant's convictions are reinstated. This case is remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the judgment. |
Knox | Supreme Court |