State of Tennessee v. Timmy Lee Hill
M2005-01126-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Russell

A Marshall County Circuit Court jury found the defendant, Timmy Lee Hill, guilty of possession with intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, possession with intent to deliver one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court merged the possession with intent to deliver conviction into the possession with intent to sell conviction and imposed an eighteen-year sentence for the possession conviction and a sixty-day sentence for the evading arrest conviction to be served consecutively as a Range II, multiple offender in confinement. The defendant appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession with intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Randy Alan Barnes v. Amy Robertson Barnes
W2004-01426-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown

In this appeal, we must determine whether the trial court had the authority to enforce the marital dissolution agreement signed by the parties when one of the parties repudiated its terms prior to court approval. The parties entered into and signed, in the presence of a notary public, a marital dissolution agreement. Shortly thereafter, the husband filed a complaint for divorce in which he expressed his repudiation of the agreement. The wife filed a motion to enforce the agreement as a validly executed contract. The trial court granted the husband a divorce, but enforced the terms of the marital dissolution agreement as a valid contract between the parties. The Court of Appeals overruled the trial court’s enforcement of the agreement, holding that the trial court did not have authority to enter a consent judgment because one of the parties had withdrawn his consent prior to the entry of judgment. We granted the wife’s application for permission to appeal and hold that the marital dissolution agreement was an enforceable agreement, and reinstate the opinion of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Donald Williams, Jr.
W2004-02355-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

The appellant, Donald Williams, Jr., was indicted on one count of first degree murder, two counts of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary and arson. After a jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of second degree murder, two counts of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed life sentences for the two felony murder convictions, a twenty-five year sentence for the second degree murder conviction, a twenty-five year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and a twelve-year sentence for the especially aggravated burglary conviction. The trial court denied a motion for new trial. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred: (1) by refusing to grant a continuance; (2) by refusing to allow the appellant to question Officer Robert Shemwell about a potentially exculpatory witness; and (3) by admitting an excessively graphic photograph of the victim. The appellant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.  Because the judgment forms do not reflect whether the sentences were imposed concurrently or merged for an effective life sentence, we remand the matter to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect that the convictions for felony murder and second degree murder are merged into one count of felony murder for an effective life sentence. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Albert Evans
W2005-00161-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

The defendant, Albert Evans, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the first degree felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction, for which the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and sentenced the defendant to twenty-four years as a Range I, standard offender for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to the life sentence without parole. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in (a) admitting an exhibit, (b) in allowing the defendant’s spouse to testify in violation of the marital privilege, and (c) in allowing the State to “proffer the contents of a prior statement” of a witness “as substantive evidence under the guise of impeaching” the witness with a prior inconsistent statement; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jamie L. Bailey
W2005-01629-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Moore

The trial court found that the defendant, Jamie L. Bailey, was competent to stand trial and he pled guilty to three counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences, reserving as a certified question of law whether the trial court was correct in its competency determination. He then filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty, and defense counsel filed a notice of appeal as to the certified question. Pending the outcome of his appeal, the trial court held in abeyance the pro se motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty. Before considering the  appeal as to the certified question, this court remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination as to the motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty. Following the remand, the defendant withdrew his motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty, and this court then considered his appeal as to the certified question. Following our review, we conclude that this appeal does not properly present a certified question because, even if resolved in favor of the defendant, it would result only in remand to the trial court for further determinations. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction as to the matter and the appeal is dismissed.

Richardson's Brentwood Homes v. Town of Collierville, Tennessee, Municipal Planning Commission
W2005-02172-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

The trial court dismissed Appellant’s appeal of the Collierville Municipal Planning Commission’s denial of Appellant’s subdivision application as barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse, vacate the order of dismissal, and remand.

Northeast Knox Utility District v. Stanfort Construction Company, et al. - Dissenting
E2005-01284-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler A. Rosenbalm

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that “Stanfort had sufficient actual knowledge of its injury no later than January 13, 2000.” I also agree that the second amended counterclaim cannot be saved by the relation-back doctrine found at Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03. I write separately to state my opinion that there are no genuine issues of material fact, which, if resolved in Stanfort’s favor, would support a determination that Richard Phillips and/or Robert G. Campbell & Associates, LP, are equitably estopped from relying upon the defense of the statute of limitations.

The majority has accurately stated that portion of the broad doctrine of equitable estoppel applicable to the facts of this case: 

Statements or conduct that support an estoppel claim include representations, made prior to the expiration of the limitations period, that the defendant either would not assert a statute of limitations defense or that the dispute would be amicably resolved without filing suit. 

Ingram v. Earthman, 993 S.W.2d 611, 633 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). I agree that the affidavit of Terry Fortner, Stanfort’s principal, along with the July 27, 1999, letter signed by Campbell and the letter of October 7, 1999, signed by Phillips, establish, for the purpose of this summary judgment analysis, certain things: first, that Fortner had been assured, in the words of the majority opinion, “that the general contractor was pursuing [Stanfort’s] claim for extra compensation” (emphasis mine); second, that Campbell recognized, in the words of the July 27, 1999, letter, that “[Stanfort] reserve[d] the right to file a claim for additional rock excavation, as provided by the contract documents;” and third, that the letter of October 7, 1999, indicated that Stanfort’s claim for compensation for extra rock excavation was “being evaluated” and that there was no contract requirement that the claim be resolved, one way or the other, “prior to the work being executed.”  My problem with the majority’s conclusion that these three documents create a genuine issue of material fact is that I find nothing in them that brings this case within the rubric of Ingram. Neither of the letters, expressly or by implication, states that a statute of limitations will not be asserted in the event a lawsuit is filed at a later date. Furthermore, there is nothing in either which could lead one to reasonably believe “that the dispute would be amicably resolved without filing suit.”  Certainly, Stanfort had reason to believe that its claim for extra compensation was being considered and might be resolved short of litigation; but this is a “far cry” from the necessary factual predicate for a reasonable belief that the claim was going to be paid without the necessity of suit being filed. 

In my judgment, the facts before the trial court, construed, as required by applicable law, in Stanfort’s favor, simply do not make out a case of equitable estoppel. I would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Northeast Knox Utility District v. Stanfort Construction Company., et al.
E2005-01284-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler A. Rosenbalm

The Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment on the grounds the statute of limitations had run on plaintiff’s claims. On appeal, we vacate and remand.

David Mosley, et al. v. Phillip L. McCanless, The Metropolitan Government
M2005-00145-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

The trial court held the Metropolitan Government comparatively liable for injuries sustained by a motorist injured in a vehicular accident. The Metropolitan Government was held comparatively at fault based upon the finding the intersection where the wreck occurred was dangerous, it had notice of the danger, and it failed to remedy the situation. It appeals, contending the design of the intersection and whether to install a stop sign or traffic light is a discretionary function, for which it is immune under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The evidence supports the findings that the intersection was dangerous and that the Metropolitan Government had notice of the danger, but failed to take remedial action. We therefore affirm.

Cathey Jenkins Jackson v. John Jackson, III
W2003-01397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

This is an appeal from a post-divorce criminal contempt proceeding. The parties were divorced by final decree in July 1999. The divorce decree incorporated the parties’ marital dissolution agreement, in which the husband agreed to pay the wife spousal support over a period of time. The husband did not make the support payments, and consequently the wife filed several motions for criminal contempt against the husband. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order reserving judgment on the issue of the husband’s criminal contempt, but requiring a non-party corporation in which the husband was a shareholder to pay to the wife a portion of the monies received by the corporation in satisfaction of the husband’s support obligation. The husband now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in holding the corporation liable for his personal debt. We dismiss the appeal, finding that it is not an appeal from a final order, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

J. O. House v. J. K. Edmondson - Dissenting
W2005-00092-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Arnold B. Goldin

I concur fully in the majority opinion, except for its conclusion that summary judgment was inappropriate on House’s separate claim of breach of contract against Edmondson, based on breach of the Pre-Incorporation Agreement. From this conclusion, I must dissent.

J. O. House v. J. K. Edmondson
W2005-00092-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Arnold B. Goldin

In 1997, the Appellant, a shareholder in a Tennessee corporation, reviewed the corporation’s records and discovered that the corporation’s majority shareholder, who also served as the corporation’s president and chairman of the board of directors, had been misappropriating corporate funds for his personal use. In 1999, the Appellant filed a shareholder’s derivative action against the majority shareholder of the corporation alleging breach of fiduciary duty. In addition to his derivative claim, the Appellant also filed a direct claim against the majority shareholder for breach of a Pre-Incorporation Agreement signed by the shareholders at the corporation’s inception. The corporation appointed a one person special litigation committee to investigate the Appellant’s derivative action.  The committee determined that the majority shareholder had indeed misappropriated corporate funds. In its report to the board of directors, the committee recommended that the corporation either attempt to settle the lawsuit with the majority shareholder pursuant to terms suggested by the committee or, in the event the majority shareholder declined such terms, proceed with the litigation.  The trial court subsequently approved the report, and the corporation settled the derivative litigation.  Regarding the direct claim for breach of the Pre-Incorporation Agreement, the majority shareholder moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion. The Appellant filed an appeal to this Court. We affirm the trial court’s decision to approve the special litigation committee’s report. We reverse the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the majority shareholder on the Appellant’s direct claim, as a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Appellant’s claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

State of Tennessee v. James David Creasy
W2005-00590-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

The defendant, James David Creasy, was convicted of possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell a schedule II drug (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an eight-year sentence for the possession of methamphetamine conviction and an eleven-month and twenty-nine day sentence for the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction. The Range II sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell methamphetamine and (2) that the sentence is excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Stephen E. Miles v. State of Tennessee
W2005-01465-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

The petitioner, Stephen E. Miles, appeals the Weakley County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to six counts of aggravated robbery, one count of theft of property greater than ten thousand dollars but less than sixty thousand dollars, and the resulting effective sentence of eighteen years in confinement. He contends (1) that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) that his guilty pleas were involuntary; (3) that the State failed to turn over evidence to the defense as required by Rule 16, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (4) that his confession to police was involuntary. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Michael Keith Kennedy v. State of Tennessee
W2005-01797-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

The petitioner, Michael Keith Kennedy, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

Brian Michael Newman v. State of Tennessee
E2005-01967-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ray L. Jenkins

The petitioner, Brian Michael Newman, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. A review of the record supports the findings of the post-conviction court. We affirm the denial of the petition.

Patricia Rounds v. Kathleen L. Caldwell
W2005-01139-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William H. Inman, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

This is an action for damages for alleged legal malpractice in the handling of a lawsuit in a federal district court. This case was dismissed on motion for summary judgment because the cause of action accrued more than one year before suit was filed. We affirm.

John Roberts v. Donald Blevins, et al.
W2005-01906-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William H. Inman, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ron E. Harmon

The Chief Deputy Sheriff was dismissed by the Sheriff of Hardin County. As Chief Deputy he was not a member of the classified service and served at the pleasure of the Sheriff. The judgment finding otherwise is reversed.

David Canter v. Richard Ebersole
E2005-02388-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor W. Frank Brown, III

Plaintiff brought an action in the Chancery Court to pierce the corporate veil to reach assets of a member to satisfy a judgment against the corporation. The Chancellor refused the request and dismissed the action. On appeal, we affirm.

Gail A. Pegues v. Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board, et al.
W2005-02074-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Walter L. Evans

This case arises from the decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board to terminate the employment of Gail Pegues, a Shelby County Buyer-Program Specialist. The Shelby County Chancery Court upheld the decision of the Civil Service Merit Board to terminate Ms. Pegues employment. She appeals. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Robert Edward Joffe
E2004-02926-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner

The appellant, Robert Edward Joffe, was indicted for assault, resisting arrest and two counts of disorderly conduct. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of assault, resisting arrest and one count of disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for assault, six months for resisting arrest and thirty days for disorderly conduct. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and ordered that the appellant serve ninety days of the sentence in jail with the remainder of the sentence to be served on probation. The appellant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to justify the convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Because the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to determine that the appellant committed the crimes as charged and because the trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Antoinette Christine Regnier v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
M2004-00351-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Claudia C. Bonnyman

Police officer filed a sexual harassment retaliation claim under the THRA against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County as a result of her transfer from an instructor at the Police Training Academy to patrol duty. A jury found that Metro had engaged in retaliation in violation of the THRA and awarded Plaintiff $150,000 in damages in addition to $110,180.70 in costs and attorney’s fees. Metro filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, or remittitur, which was denied by the trial court. Metro appeals claiming that Plaintiff failed to prove, as a matter of law, that her transfer was an “adverse employment action” as required by the THRA or in the alternative, that the amount of the award should be reduced. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Antoinette Christine Regnier v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County - Concurring
M2004-00351-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Claudia C. Bonnyman

I concur with Judge Cain’s decision to affirm the jury verdict in this case. Cases like this are fact-intensive, and thus care must be taken to avoid applying our decisions to dissimilar circumstances. I have prepared this separate opinion to emphasize the evidence upon which the jury’s verdict in this case is based. 

I.

Antoinette Regnier joined the Metropolitan Police Department in 1993. Five years later, in July 1998, she was promoted to sergeant and was selected for a prestigious assignment as an instructor at the Police Training Academy. Three months later, a female intern complained to Sergeant Regnier that Lieutenant Anthony Carter, Sergeant Regnier’s immediate superior, had sexually harassed her.¹ Sergeant Regnier herself had been the target of sexually suggestive remarks by Lieutenant Carter,² and she had also overheard Lieutenant Carter make similar inappropriate comments to other females at the Academy. 

Following Department policy, Sergeant Regnier reported Lieutenant Carter’s conduct to the Director of the Academy. The Director decided to handle the matter informally by calling a meeting of the entire staff to discuss sexual harassment issues and appropriate conduct on the job. Lieutenant Carter later apologized privately to Sergeant Regnier and publically apologized for his conduct at a staff meeting held several weeks later. 

Despite his outward contrition, Lieutenant Carter was extremely upset with Sergeant Regnier.  He berated her during a staff meeting in March 1999 and characterized her earlier sexual harassment Both Lieutenant Carter and Deputy Chief Faulkner were 1974 graduates from the Academy. They were close friends. In an October 1998 email, Lieutenant Carter told Deputy Chief Faulkner “Trust is earned, and I’ll never betray you. CLASS OF “74” A Friend to the end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”  complaint as “bulls**t.”   Lieutenant Carter also decided to exploit his personal friendship with Deputy Chief of Police Deborah Faulkner3 to cause both Sergeant Regnier and the Academy’s Director to be transferred. His efforts bore fruit. Both the Director’s and Sergeant Regnier’s names were on the very next transfer list. 

Both the Director and Sergeant Regnier attempted to discuss their transfers with the Chief of Police, but he referred them to Deputy Chief Faulkner. Sergeant Regnier had received good performance ratings at the Academy. Deputy Chief Faulkner did not express concerns about Sergeant Regnier’s performance during their meeting, and she did not respond directly to Sergeant Regnier’s concern that her transfer stemmed from the sexual harassment complaint against Lieutenant Carter. Deputy Chief Faulkner told Sergeant Regnier that she was “very bright [and] highly educated” and that she would benefit from additional “street experience.” 

In the final analysis, both the Sergeant Regnier and the Director were transferred away from the Academy. Sergeant Regnier was initially assigned to the B-Detail, apparently to disrupt her law school schedule. Because she desired to complete law school, Sergeant Regnier requested and received an assignment to the midnight shift with few supervisory responsibilities. Deputy Chief Faulkner appointed Lieutenant Carter acting Director of the Academy and later named him the Director. In a November 1999 email to the Deputy Chief, Lieutenant Carter observed “[m]uch better around here since the removal of the last piece of CANCER.” 

II. 

The Tennessee Human Rights Act permits an employee to recover damages from his or her employer if the employer retaliates against him or her for complaining about discriminatory conduct in the workplace. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-301(1) (2005). To be compensable, the retaliation must amount to an adverse employment action. Austin v. Shelby County Gov’t, 3 S.W.3d 474, 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Newsom v. Textron Aerostructures, 924 S.W.2d 87, 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). The
phrase “adverse employment action” is now a term of art in cases like this. The courts have defined it to encompass actions by employers that cause “a material and adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment.” Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698, 707 (Tenn. 2000); see also Spann v. Abraham, 36 S.W.3d 452, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). 

Not every employment action that makes an employee unhappy rises to the level of an adverse employment action. Tyler v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 245 F.3d 969, 972 (7th Cir. 2001); Spann v. Abraham, 36 S.W.3d at 468. An employment action must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities to be considered as an adverse employment action. Traylor v. Brown, 295 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir. 2002).

Lateral transfers that do not involve a demotion in form or substance do not amount to adverse employment actions. Keeton v. Flying J, Inc., 429 F.3d 259, 273 (6th Cir. 2005); Williams v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 85 F.3d 270, 274 (7th Cir. 1996). Nor does a pure lateral transfer become an adverse employment action simply because the affected employee subjectively prefers one position over another. McKenzie v. Milwaukee County, 381 F.3d 619, 625 (7th Cir. 2004).  However, a transfer or reassignment without a change in salary may amount to an adverse employment action if it involves (1) a less distinguished title, (2) a material loss of benefits, (3) a significant change in work hours or location, (4) significantly different responsibilities, (5) a significant reduction in the employee’s career prospects by preventing the employee from using his or her skills or experience, or (6) other factors that are uniquely relevant to the particular situation.  Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S. Ct. 2257, 2268-69 (1998); O’Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir. 2004); Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 886 (6th Cir. 1996); Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d at 707. 

III.

In order to prevail in this case, Sergeant Regnier was required to prove that a reasonable person in her position would have viewed her transfer from the Academy as an adverse employment action. Doe v. Dekalb County Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 1441, 1449 (11th Cir. 1998). Based on the facts of this case, I have concluded that she succeeded. Sergeant Regnier and her witnesses established that working as an instructor at the Academy was a prestigious position compared to other positions in the Department. The job is highly sought-after, and officers competed for the assignment.  Working at the Academy required more skills than other assignments in the Department.⁴ Sergeant Regnier’s patrol assignment involved significantly different work hours and a significantly different schedule, and her position at the Academy involved significantly more and different responsibilities than her patrol assignment. 

A court should grant a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.02 motion in accordance with the motion for directed verdict only when it finds that reasonable minds cannot differ with regard to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Alexander v. Armentrout, 24 S.W.3d 267, 271 (Tenn. 2000); Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587, 590 (Tenn. 1994). Based on my review of the record, I concur with Judge Cain’s conclusions that the trial court properly denied the Metropolitan Government’s Tenn.  R. Civ. P. 50.02 motion and that the damages awarded by the jury are not excessive and are supported by the evidence.

¹The intern reported that Lieutenant Carter had shown her a suggestive picture of himself wearing a lime green bikini and had asked her whether she would like to “try riding this wild stallion.”

²Lieutenant Carter had called Sergeant Regnier a “lean mean sex machine” and had commented to her that “[y]our husband must be real proud of the way you look under those clothes.”

³ Both Lieutenant Carter and Deputy Chief Faulkner were 1974 graduates from the Academy. They were close friends. In an October 1998 email, Lieutenant Carter told Deputy Chief Faulkner “Trust is earned, and I’ll never betray you. CLASS OF “74” A Friend to the end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

⁴The fact that a position requires more qualifications is an indication of prestige. 4 White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 364 F.3d 789, 803 (6th Cir. 2004), cert granted, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 797 (2005). 

State of Tennessee v. Frank Randall Snowden
W2005-01851-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clayburn L. Peeples

The appellant, Frank Randall Snowden, pled guilty in the Gibson County Circuit Court to a violation of the residency restriction for convicted sex offenders, a Class A misdemeanor. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended. As a condition of his plea, the appellant attempted to reserve a certified question of law as to “whether [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 40-39-111 is constitutional under state and/or federal law and as applied to this [appellant].”  Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appellant did not properly reserve his certified question, and, therefore, the appellant’s appeal must be dismissed.

State of Tennessee v. Artis Whitehead
W2004-03058-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

The defendant, Artis Whitehead, appeals his convictions and sentencing on five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping (Class A felony); two counts of aggravated assault (Class C felony); two counts of aggravated robbery (Class B felony); two counts of especially aggravated robbery (Class A felony); and one count of attempted aggravated robbery (Class C felony). The consecutive sentences imposed totaled 249 years.