Washshukru Al-Jabbar A'La vs. State E2001-03133-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: D. Michael Swiney
Court of Appeals
Heather Lynn Key v. American Insurance Company M2001-00980-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann._ 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the plaintiff to be 22 _ percent anatomically impaired, and applied a multiplier of 2 _ times in awarding benefits based upon a 56.25 vocational percent impairment. The evidence preponderates against a finding of 22 _ percent anatomical impairment. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed as Modified WILLIAM H. INMAN, SR. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J. and HOWELL N. PEOPLES, SP. J., joined. William R. Pigue and A. Allen Smith, III, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, American Insurance Company. William Joseph Butler and E. Guy Holliman, Lafayette, Tennessee, for the appellee, Heather Lynn Key. MEMORANDUM OPINION Background On March 18, 1999, the plaintiff filed a complaint for workers' compensation benefits resulting from alleged injuries to her right shoulder, arm and neck. On May 19, 1999, she filed another complaint for workers' compensation benefits resulting from alleged injuries to her left shoulder and arm. The defendant responded that the plaintiff continued to work, that her injuries were minimal, and that she suffered no significant anatomical impairment or vocational disability. The cases were consolidated for trial. The trial court found that the plaintiff sustained a 22 _ percent anatomical impairment resulting in a 56.25 percent vocational impairment and awarded benefits accordingly. The defendant appeals, insisting that the award is excessive because the findings are not supported by credible proof. Our review is de novo on the record with the presumption that the judgment is correct unless the evidence otherwise preponderates. Rule 13 (d) T.R.A.P. The Evidence The plaintiff is a 29 year old mother of two children, ages seven and nine. She is a high school graduate with some college work and vocational courses in computer science and various hobbies. She began working for Bosch Braking Systems in April 1995, doing assembly work. She resigned her job on March 7, 2 because "I didn't feel I was getting better." It is significant that she missed no time from work, and she testified that at the time of trial nine months after she left work her condition had improved. She was then under no medical treatment, and she "had no interest in working." She testified that she had difficulty in performing household chores, driving her car and other activities which required physical exertion. Her husband corroborated her testimony concerning her imposed work limitations. Plaintiff testified that she first began having difficulties in October of 1998 when she began experiencing discomfort in her right shoulder and arm. She was treated by Dr. Michael Bernui, whose notes indicate that he initially treated her left shoulder and arm. At a follow-up visit, she complained of discomfort in her right shoulder and arm, and Dr. Bernui treated her conservatively. She next saw Dr. Bernui several months later, shortly before filing suit, complaining of persistent pain in her right arm and shoulder. He continued to prescribe physical therapy and the use of anti- inflammatory drugs, but determined that a nerve conduction study would be useful in evaluating the plaintiff's condition. He referred her to a neurologist, Dr. Alan Bachrach, for a complete EMG study. The study was performed of the right upper extremity and revealed no evidence of abnormality. Dr. Bernui continued to treat the plaintiff on a weekly basis. With no objective evidence of physical dysfunction, he ordered an x-ray of her right shoulder which revealed no abnormality. He thereupon referred the plaintiff to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Thomas Gautsch. -2-
On November 9, 1999, the Appellant, Jody Alan Ferguson, pled guilty to nine counts of forgery in the Obion County Circuit Court and was sentenced to two years of community corrections after service of thirty days confinement in the county jail. On March 9, 2000, Ferguson pled guilty to four counts of forgery and received an effective sentence of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Ferguson's placement in the community corrections program was revoked and his nine two-year sentences were ordered to be served in the Department of Correction concurrently with his March 9th sentences. On June 21, 2000, Ferguson was granted determinate release by the Department of Correction for the series of two-year sentences imposed on November 9, 1999, and March 9, 2000, and he was returned to supervised probation. On June 26, 2000, Ferguson again pled guilty to two counts of forgery and received concurrent two-year suspended sentences to be served concurrently to all outstanding sentences previously imposed. On August 28, 2001, probation violation warrants were issued against Ferguson. The warrants alleged that Ferguson had violated the following conditions: (1) failed to report to the probation officer; (2) failed to pay supervision fees; (3) failed to pay restitution and court costs; and (4) failed to perform community service work. On November 9, 2001, the trial court revoked Ferguson's probationary status and ordered him to serve the remainder of his two-year sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Ferguson does not contest the trial court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation. Rather, Ferguson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not again placing him on probation or community corrections. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Obion
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Burke W2001-01462-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Terrance Burke, of aggravated robbery. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the victim's identification of him via a photographic line-up. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the conviction.
William J. Burns appeals from his aggravated burglary and theft convictions. He was convicted at a jury trial in the Sevier County Circuit Court, and he is presently serving an effective fifteen-year sentence as a persistent offender for these crimes. He claims in this appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated burglary conviction and that the lower court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. Because we disagree, we affirm.
A Sullivan County jury convicted the defendant of theft over $1,000 for stealing a car. On appeal, he argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State v. David Troxell M2000-01100-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch
Dickson
Supreme Court
State of Tennessee v. Carl G. Dodd E2001-01304-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Graham
Carl G. Dodd appeals his rape conviction from the Rhea County Circuit Court. Dodd's conviction stems from a sexual assault upon a mentally retarded adult man. He is presently serving an eleven-year sentence in the Department of Correction for this crime. In this direct appeal, he claims that the trial court erred in admitting a psychological report as a business record even though it was not prepared by the agency through whose employee it was admitted, that the lower court erred in admitting evidence of the victim's statements to a caseworker about the crime, and that he was sentenced too harshly. Because we are unpersuaded of harmful error, we affirm.
Rhea
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Stevie Lawson E2001-01841-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Beckner
Convicted of facilitation of aggravated burglary, theft, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, the defendant appeals and claims that (1) the trial court erroneously admitted the videotape deposition of the aggravated burglary and theft victim, (2) the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, and (3) the testimony of an accomplice was not adequately corroborated. On the issue of the admission of the victim's videotape deposition that was taken to preserve his testimony, we hold that the assistant district attorney general who took the deposition lacked authority to administer the oath to the deponent and that the lack of authority effectively resulted in no deposition being taken. However, we hold that the resulting videotape was a hearsay statement that was admissible into evidence for lack of a timely objection and that no plain error review is warranted. We also hold that the verdicts are valid despite any apparent inconsistency among them and that the testimony of an accomplice was adequately corroborated. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Hawkins
Court of Criminal Appeals
Pamela H Arvey v. Aztex Enterprises E2001-01262-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor
The employer contends the trial court erred in refusing to cap the award at two and one-half times the medical impairment and that the award is excessive under the facts. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Defendant, James Robert Wilson, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. He was ordered to serve concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and twenty years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. Defendant appeals his convictions and presents the following five issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting audio taped threat evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a witness's characterization of Defendant as a "robber"; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the State's comment that Defendant failed to call a witness; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's request for a jury instruction on accomplice testimony; and (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge all applicable lesser-included offenses. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Julia Beth Crews v. Buckman Laboratories W2000-01834-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey
The sole issue in this case is whether an in-house lawyer can bring a common-law claim for retaliatory discharge when she was terminated for reporting that her employer's general counsel was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We granted permission to appeal to the plaintiff and hold that in-house counsel may bring a common-law action for retaliatory discharge resulting from counsel's compliance with a provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility that represents a clear and definitive statement of public policy. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Shelby
Supreme Court
State of Tennessee v. Charles Kirby W2001-00791-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
The appellant, Charles Kirby, was found guilty of facilitation of the sale of cocaine in the amount of .5 gram or more. He was sentenced to five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, alleging that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. After review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Gibson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jermaine A. Paine v. State of Tennessee W2001-01564-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey
On February 23, 1999, the Defendant, Jermaine Payne, pled guilty to one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for the second degree murder and fifteen years for each of the attempted murders. The sentences were to be served concurrently. The Defendant subsequently filed a pro se Petition for Post-Conviction relief which was amended with the aid of appointed counsel. The petition alleged that the Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. A hearing was held on the petition on January 12, 2001, and relief was denied. The Defendant now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Pauline Cato v. Montgomery County Bd of Commissioners M2001-01846-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Michael R. Jones
This appeal arises from a property owner's efforts to rezone a 94-acre tract of property in the Sango community of Montgomery County from an agricultural to a residential classification. Despite the planning commission's approval of the proposal, the Montgomery County Commission declined to change the property's zoning classification. The property owner thereafter filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County asserting that the county commission had succumbed to community pressure and lacked any other appropriate basis for declining to rezone the property. The trial court, sitting without a jury, upheld the county commission's decision after concluding that it was fairly debatable whether the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding community. The property owner has appealed. We have determined that the courts have no basis to second-guess the county commission's decision and, therefore, we affirm the judgment.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Leo Davis Jr. vs. Angela Davis W2001-01748-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding initiated by the husband. The trial court, holding that husband had engaged in inappropriate marital conduct, granted the divorce to the wife. The trial court valued and classified much of the parties' property with limited proof. The court further awarded wife attorney's fees and costs. Husband now raises several issues for our review. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case for further proceedings.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Donald King vs. Betty King W2001-01766-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This is an alimony case. The parties were married for twenty-nine years. The wife is disabled and unable to work. Upon divorce, the husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro until the wife reaches sixty-two years of age. On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court improperly assessed the wife's living expenses, and that the husband will not be able to afford the necessities of life if he is required to fulfill his alimony obligation. We affirm, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Ronnie Carroll vs. Nancy Braden vs. James Palmer W2001-01901-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
This appeal involves a disputed tract of land that the third-party plaintiff allegedly purchased in 1983 and received a deed for in 1987. The trial court held that plaintiff's statutes of limitation had expired and granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendant who executed the deed. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
Lillard Watts vs. Kroger W2001-01834-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Rita L. Stotts
This is a personal injury case dismissed by the trial court as barred by the statute of limitation because it was filed more than one year after the first voluntary nonsuit. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the order of dismissal pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 and also filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion to set aside the orders of nonsuit as invalid. The trial court denied both motions, and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm.
The appellant, Steven James McCain, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Davidson County of two counts of first degree premeditated murder. He received two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's "Motion to Suppress Identifications Made During an Unconstitutional Photographic Line-Up Procedure"; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's "Motion to Suppress Defendant's Statements"; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting the audio-tape-recorded statement of Chad Collins; (4) whether the trial court erred in overruling the defense request for a mistrial when the prosecution improperly argued that the jury should consider Chad Collins' statement as substantive evidence at trial; and (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Willie J. Miller, Jr. M2001-01868-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
The defendant appeals from his conviction for child rape rendered after a jury trial. On appeal, the defendant claims: (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request for an appointed DNA expert; (2) the victim, who was five years old at the time of trial, was not competent to testify; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the victim's testimony should not have been presented. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Larry Butler vs. Gwendolyn Butler W2001-01137-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This is a contempt of court case. The father and mother were divorced in August 1999. The father was ordered to make child support payments to the mother. The mother later filed a motion to require the father to pay his child support obligation through income assignment. The mother then sought the assistance of a state-authorized child support enforcement contractor to assist her in obtaining an increase in child support. This act triggered statutory provisions associated with Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The trial court denied the mother's motion to require income assignment, and ordered that the child support payments continue to be paid directly to the mother. The child support contractor then caused a child support payment coupon to be sent to the father, and also issued, on behalf of the Tennessee Department of Human Services, an administrative order to redirect the child support payments to the State's child support collection and disbursement unit. In response, the father filed a motion to hold the mother in civil contempt for taking actions to have the child support payments made by income assignment, and also sought an order enjoining the mother from utilizing the child support contractor. The trial court ordered that the administrative order be set aside. The mother then filed another motion, inter alia, to have the father pay child support by income assignment through the State's central child support collection and disbursement unit. The father filed another motion to have the mother and the child support contractor cited for contempt of court. The trial court held the mother and the child support contractor in contempt, fined each of them, ordered that they reimburse the father for the administrative fees and his attorney's fees, and pay court costs. We reverse, holding that the finding of contempt by the trial judge was an abuse of discretion because the original order was contrary to Tennessee law; Tennessee statutes require the father's child support payments to be redirected through the State child support collection and disbursement unit, and the record does not include evidence supporting an exemption from the statutory requirement that the payments be made by income assignment.
