State vs. Deborah Graham & Denice Smith
E1999-02248-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Rex H. Ogle
After a jury trial, a Cocke County jury found the Defendants, Deborah Graham and Denice Smith, guilty of the first degree murder of Aaron Smith. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced both Defendants to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right, the Defendants raise the following issues: 1) whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the indictments because of the State's failure to provide the Defendants with a speedy trial; 2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to decide not to consolidate Alexandro Rivera's case with the Defendants' case, because of a potential Bruton problem, without first granting the Defendants an opportunity to be heard on the issue; 3) whether the trial court erred in failing to sever Defendant Smith's case from Defendant Graham's case; 4) whether the trial court erred in consolidating Defendant Graham's case with Defendant Smith's case; and 5) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict each of the Defendants of first degree murder. After a thorough review of the evidence and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Darrick Edwards vs. State
E1999-01204-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer
The petitioner, Darrick Edwards, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petitioner was provided the effective assistance of counsel and knowingly and voluntarily entered his pleas of guilt to first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, the judgment is affirmed.

State vs. DeWayne Greene
E1999-01288-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: O. Duane Slone
Defendant, Dewayne Greene, was convicted by a guilty plea of simple assault, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and reckless endangerment in Hamblen County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with three-hundred days to be served in confinement. Defendant was also indicted by the Jefferson County Grand Jury for two counts of aggravated assault arising from incidents involving the same victim as those which generated the Hamblen County indictments. Defendant pled guilty in the Jefferson County Circuit Court with the condition that the trial court "reserve an entry of conviction" until the court heard Defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy. After the trial court heard and denied Defendant's motion, it sentenced Defendant as a Range I offender to concurrent terms of six years for each count of aggravated assault. In this appeal, Defendant argues that (1) double jeopardy bars the Jefferson County convictions because Defendant's previous Hamblen County convictions were based upon the same conduct, and (2) Defendant's sentence for the aggravated assault convictions is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we find that only Defendant's sentencing issue is properly before this Court. Defendant failed to properly reserve the double jeopardy issue as a certified question of law for appellate review. We affirm the sentence of six years for count 1 and reduce the sentence for count 2 to five years; the total effective sentence remains at six years.

White vs. Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc.
E1999-02023-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
We granted permission to appeal in this case to address whether a private employer may be held liable for the negligent actions of an off-duty police officer who was hired by the employer for private security purposes. In the circuit court, the defendant employer moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' wrongful death action for failure to state a claim, and the motion was granted by the trial judge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the actions of the off-duty officer were taken in furtherance of his official duties as a peace officer, and therefore, the defendant employer could not be held liable for the officer's negligent actions. After reviewing the complaint in this case, along with the applicable legal authority, we hold that the complaint does state a claim against the defendant employer for the negligence of the off-duty officer. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Knox County Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

State of Tennessee v. Spike William Hedgecoth
E2000-00051-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Lillie Ann Sells

State vs. Ernest B. Eady
E2000-00722-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
The defendant appeals from his conviction for second degree murder, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the timeliness of the state's disclosure of a potentially exculpatory witness, and the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Elvin Blankenship vs. Alvis Blankenship
W1999-02134-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This appeal arises from a property line dispute between several parties. During the trial, the Chancellor appointed an independent surveyor as a Special Master to determine the actual location of the boundary lines between the parties. When the Special Master reported his results, the Chancellor concurred in his findings. We affirm.

Thomas Smith vs. Arthur Johnson
W2000-00063-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
This is a wrongful death case. A car crossed the center line and collided with a dump truck, causing the dump truck to strike and kill three pedestrians, including the plaintiff's wife and son. The plaintiff sued the driver of the car, the driver of the dump truck, and the company for which the dump truck driver was hauling asphalt. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company, finding that the truck driver was an independent contractor. At trial, the jury found that the driver of the car was 100% at fault for the accident, and that the truck driver bore no fault in the accident. The plaintiffs did not move for a new trial. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the company, finding that the liability of the company would be derived from the fault of the truck driver in the operation or maintenance of his dump truck, and that the company could not be held liable where the jury found that the truck driver bore no fault in the accident.

Richard Stoner vs. Mary Stoner
W2000-01230-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
This appeal arises from a divorce between a couple with a long standing pre-marital relationship. Citing this relationship, the trial court classified two stock accounts as marital property and awarded Wife a portion of their funds. These accounts were pre-marital accounts of Husband. No marital funds were deposited in the accounts by either party and Wife had no interaction with the accounts. Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court's classification of this property as marital property amounts to recognition of a common-law marriage, and Tennessee does not recognize common-law marriages. As such, the trial court was incorrect in awarding funds from the accounts to Wife. The trial court correctly assigned pre-marital debt, divided the remainder of marital property, and awarded alimony in futuro and attorney's fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Dana Scott vs. Edward Sellers
W2000-00422-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This is a personal injury and wrongful death case arising from a collision between a pickup truck and a tractor trailer truck. The five-year-old son of plaintiffs Dana Scott and Shane Thurmon died as a result of the accident. The driver of the car was an "on call" employee of his father's business at the time. The plaintiffs sued the driver of the car and his father, alleging vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior and under the family purpose doctrine. Plaintiff Dana Scott also sued for consortium-type damages for the loss of her son. Although referring to it as a directed verdict, the trial court, pursuant to Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, entered an involuntary dismissal in favor of the defendants on the vicarious liability issue, under both respondeat superior and the family purpose doctrine, and on the loss of filial consortium claim. The trial court awarded damages, inter alia, to Dana Scott for the wrongful death of her son and to Carl Fuhs for personal injuries based upon his negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. We hold the following: (1) employer is not vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for acts or omissions of "on call" employee when employee is not acting within the course and scope of his employment; (2) the requirements of the family purpose doctrine were met and defendant Donald Sellers, Sr. is vicariously liable under this theory; (3) parents may recover filial consortium damages in wrongful death actions for the death of their child; (4) the trial court's wrongful death award to Dana Scott was supported by the evidence; (5) Carl Fuhs sufficiently established a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) the personal injury award to Carl Fuhs is affirmed.

State vs. Sean Imfeld
E2000-00094-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz

State vs. Homer L. Evans
E2000-00069-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: E. Shayne Sexton
The defendant appeals from the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. We affirm the trial court.

State vs. Sean Imfeld
E2000-00094-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz

State vs. Sonya Gosnell & Bronzo Gosnell, Jr .
E1999-00603-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
A jury convicted both defendants of second degree murder. Bronzo Gosnell and Sonya Gosnell were sentenced to 25 years and 20 years, respectively. In this appeal as a matter of right, both defendants challenge the introduction of recorded conversations made while detained in a police cruiser. Sonya Gosnell further challenges the introduction of certain pretrial statements, the administration of a polygraph examination, the denial of her motion for severance, and the denial of expert assistance. Bronzo Gosnell further challenges the trial court's limitation of his cross-examination of a witness and his maximum sentence of 25 years. Our review of the issues presented by the defendants reflects no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State vs. Leon Hurd
E1999-01341-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

State vs. Leon Hurd
E1999-01341-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

State vs. Tracie Kirkland
E1999-01344-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross
Defendant was convicted by a Monroe County jury of first degree premeditated murder and given a life sentence. In this appeal, defendant makes the following allegations of error: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying a continuance; (3) the trial court improperly charged the jury on criminal responsibility for the conduct of another; and (4) the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Upon our review of the record, we conclude the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction for first degree premeditated murder, and defendant's sentence should be reduced to second degree murder. The other allegations of error are without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is modified to reflect a conviction for second degree murder, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

State vs. Deandrade Phillips
E2000-00153-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The defendant appeals from his conviction for selling less than one-half gram of cocaine, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's restrictions of his examinations of witnesses, the trial court's failure to require the state to elect the offense for which it sought a conviction, and the jury instructions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

John Britt vs. Johnny Massengill
W1999-01129-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This is a suit arising from the Appellants' purchase of real property from the Appellees. The Appellees executed a warranty deed to the Appellants. The Appellants claim that the Appellees failed to disclose that the property was subject to a timber contract. The Appellants filed a complaint against the Appellees in the Chancery Court of Henderson County, requesting damages for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court ordered rescission of the contract for the sale of real property.

Chuck Wallace vs. Bob Chase
W1999-01987-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
This appeal arises from a boundary line dispute between the Appellants and the Appellees. The Appellees filed a complaint with the Chancery Court of Carroll County against the Appellants. The Appellants filed a counter-complaint against the Appellees. Following a trial, the trial court reformed the deeds of the parties. The trial court moved the disputed corner of the properties twelve and one half feet due south of a PK nail in the roadway. The trial court also granted a permanent easement for an existing driveway to the Appellants.

State vs. Jacqueline Heard & Irvin Salky
W1999-02414-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This appeal involves an attempt by a taxpayer to redeem his property after it had been sold at a tax sale. The taxpayer filed a Petition to Redeem the property within the one-year statutory period, but failed to tender the money into court within the one-year period, as required by statute. The chancellor below granted the taxpayer an additional thirty days, as a matter of equity, in which to pay the money into court and redeem his property. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Chris Farley vs. Charles Ellis, et al
W2000-00354-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
Plaintiff sued defendants to enforce alleged oral agreement to convey real estate or alternatively for damages. The trial court found that the oral agreement violated the statute of frauds, but ordered, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the specific performance of the oral agreement. Defendants have appealed.

Sabrina Burton vs. Carroll Co.
W2000-00549-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, sued county and county's volunteer fire department pursuant to Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act seeking damages for wife's personal injuries and husband's loss of consortium sustained while they were patronizing a "haunted house" operated by the volunteer fire department to raise funds. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants were negligent in (1) creating a dangerous and defective condition and failing to correct that condition; (2) failing to warn the public of the dangers and defective condition; and (3) failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The trial court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendants have appealed. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Myron Zimmerman vs. City of Memphis
W2000-01369-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This appeal involves the determination of whether the City of Memphis properly levied a special assessment upon the property owners within the Central Business Improvement District in downtown Memphis. The affected property owners allege that the levy in question was not a special assessment. They allege that the levy was a tax in violation of section 7-84-501 et seq. of the Tennessee Code as well as Article 2, Section 29 of the Tennessee Constitution. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

State vs. Thomas E. Davenport and John Simmons
M2000-00317-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
Both defendants were convicted by a Williamson County jury of selling more than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony. Both defendants were sentenced as Range II, multiple offenders. Defendant Simmons received a sixteen-year sentence, and defendant Davenport received a fifteen-year sentence. In this direct appeal, both defendants challenge (1) the sufficiency of the evidence, and (2) the length and manner of service of their sentences. Simmons further raises the following issues: (1) whether he was denied a speedy trial; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss due to the absence of proper signatures on the indictment; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to require the state to elect an offense upon which to proceed. Additionally, Davenport makes the following allegations: (1) the trial court erred in allowing portions of the audio taped drug transaction to be presented to the jury; (2) the trial court erred in ruling his prior convictions were admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 609; and (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when the informant referred to Davenport's offering her a crack pipe. Based upon a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as it relates to defendant Simmons; however, we reverse defendant Davenport's conviction for the sale of cocaine and reduce it to simple possession of cocaine. We remand to the trial court to re-sentence defendant Davenport.