Dotson vs. Blake, et al W1998-00710-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Weakley County, which refused to permit the jury in a personal injury case to allocate fault to tortfeasors who successfully asserted a statute of repose defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. We granted review to decide whether fault may be attributed to tortfeasors who cannot be held liable because of a statute of repose. After examining the record, considering the arguments of the parties, and analyzing the applicable law, we conclude that the courts below erred in not allowing fault to be assigned to the tortfeasors who successfully asserted a statute of repose to the claims against them. Accordingly, for the reasons explained hereafter, the lower courts are reversed.
State vs. Patrick Maxwell E1999-00124-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Patrick Maxwell E1999-00124-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
Reece vs. Brown M1997-00217-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
Marion
Court of Appeals
McKee vs. McKee M1997-00204-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Maury
Court of Appeals
McKee vs. McKee M1997-00204-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Maury
Court of Appeals
State vs. Dimarko Bojere Williams M1997-00113-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Dimarko Bojere Williams was convicted of second degree murder and was sentenced to the Department of Correction for twenty-five years. Williams appealed, contending, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder because he and the victim had been engaged in "mutual combat" at the time of the killing. In cases in which a victim is killed during mutual combat, he asserted, the defendant may be convicted of voluntary manslaughter only. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction for second degree murder but modified Williams's sentence on other grounds. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder. In so doing, we reject the defendant's contention that a killing which occurs during mutual combat is, as a matter of law, voluntary manslaughter. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
State vs. Henry M1995-00005-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the co-defendant following the arrest of the defendant and the co-defendant for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and related offenses. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that although the conspiracy to commit the offenses had ended, the co-defendant's statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of a separate conspiracy to conceal the offenses and were admissible pursuant to the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule set out in Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1.2)(E). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the co-defendant's statements were made after the conspiracy had ended and, therefore, were not admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1.2)(E). We further conclude, however, that the error was harmless, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Davidson
Supreme Court
State vs. Henry Daniels W2002-00193-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and aggravated rape, a Class A felony. He was sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to fifteen years for the aggravated burglary conviction and as a violent offender to forty years for the aggravated rape conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of fifty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the sole issue of whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying his request to represent himself at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to the aggravated burglary conviction to reflect the defendant's conviction offense which was omitted from the judgment form.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Ronald E. Walton vs. State E1999-01165-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer
After a hearing, the petitioner appeals the criminal court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Convicted in 1968 of assault and battery with intent to rape, the petitioner was sentenced to incarceration for ten years. The petitioner has fully served his sentence in Tennessee. However, his Tennessee conviction was used to enhance his 1980 conviction of rape in Indiana. The petitioner proceeds to challenge his Tennessee conviction, in hope of a sentence reduction in Indiana. After careful review, we affirm the criminal court's dismissal.
The petitioner, James William Taylor, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit Court on September 9, 1998. In August 1988, the petitioner was convicted of felony murder, robbery, and second degree burglary in the Williamson County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment on the murder conviction, to a fifteen year sentence on the second degree burglary conviction, and to a fifteen year sentence on the robbery conviction, with all sentences to be served consecutively to one another. The petitioner appealed and this court affirmed the petitioner’s convictions and sentence on April 25, 1990. See State v. Taylor, No. 89-93-III, 1990 WL 50751 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1990). The petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief on April 10, 1991. The trial court appointed counsel and the petitioner amended the petition numerous times to allege additional grounds for relief. After hearing evidence on the issues raised by the petition, the post-conviction court filed a memorandum opinion denying relief. On appeal the petitioner presents the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the post-conviction court erred by finding that the petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective; and (2) whether the post-conviction court erred by finding that the State did not violate the petitioner’s right to a fair trial by withholding exculpatory evidence. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
