State vs. Shonda McGill
02C01-9507-CC-00194
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. John Gillon
02C01-9610-CC-00363
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

State vs. Steven Little
02C01-9605-CC-00168
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

State vs. Bailey
03C01-9601-CR-00028
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Bernard and Bernard vs. Houston Ezell Corp. et al
01A01-9701-CH-00015
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark

Cooner vs. Cooner
01A01-9701-CV-00021

Family Golf of Nashville, Inc. vs. Metropolitan Gov't.
01A01-9612-CH-00557
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Cooner vs. Cooner
01A01-9701-CV-00021
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

Tuttle vs. Tuttle
01A01-9512-CV-00546
Trial Court Judge: Gerald L. Ewell, Sr.

State vs. Bradley
03C01-9609-CR-00349

Maney vs. State
03C01-9612-CR-00470

Miller vs. State
03C01-9608-CR-00288
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

State of Tennessee vs. Quantreal Underwood
02C01-9604-CR-00120
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty

The defendant, Quantreal Underwood, was convicted of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated robbery.1 The trial court imposed a Range I, twenty-five-year sentence for second degree murder and two concurrent eight-year sentences on each count of aggravated robbery.

Horace A. LaRue, and Carla LaRue, Parents and next of kin of Randall Charles LaRue, Deceased., v. 1817 Lake Incorporated, D/B/A Bonkers, Howard Tannenbaum, Ricky Chambers, Robert Archer, and Danny G. Brewer
03A01-9702-CV-00053
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm

This case arises from a motorcycle accident in which Randy LaRue, the 20-year old son of the plaintiff's, was killed. Plaintiff's sued 1817 Lake, Inc., D/B/A/ Bonkers, a Knoxville restaurant and bar, and Howard Tannenbaum, presidetn of 1817 Lake Inc., alleging that the defendant negligently and unlawfully served Randy and his companion, defendant Danny Brewer, alcoholic beverages on the evening of the accident. Plaintiffs also sued Robert Archer, the bartender who allegedly provided LaRue and Brewer with the drinks, and Ricky Chambers, the doorman on duty at Bonkers that night. The remaining defendant, Danny G. Brewer was the operator of the motor cycle at the time of the accident which resulted in Randall Charles LaRues, death.

State of Tennessee vs. Robert Lee Fleenor
03C01-9611-CR-00400
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The appellant, Roger Lee Fleenor, appeals the sentence imposed by the Sullivan County Criminal Court upon his plea of guilty to the offense of attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a class C felony. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the appellant received a sentence of eight years as a range II offender. The manner of service of the sentence was submitted to the trial court for determination. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied any form of alternative sentence and ordered that the sentence be served in the Department of Correction.
The appellant now appeals this decision.

Wilburn v. Boyle
03S01-9611-CH-00111
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John S. Mclellan, III,
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 plaintiff below appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint, holding that the plaintiff had not met his burden of proving that he had sustained a permanent vocational disability as a result of his work-related accident. We affirm the trial court's judgment. The plaintiff offered the testimony of himself, his brother, Bobby W ilburn; his parents, Robert and Ruth Wilburn; and Sondra Brown, the record keeper for Med- One, where plaintiff originally received medical treatment. He also submitted the deposition of plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Jim Brasfield, and the medical report of an examining physician, Dr. Calvin Johnson, along with other documentary exhibits. The defendant offered the testimony of Brian Looney, who had been plaintiff's supervisor at Aquamine; two co-workers of the plaintiff at Aquamine, Gerald Holmes and Paul Pyle; and Robert Rinehart, the manager of Aquamine at the time of these events, as well as documentary evidence. Parties disputed whether the date of the accident was September 25 or 29, 1993, but it was eventually stipulated that adequate notice was given. Plaintiff, Mr. Looney and Mr. Pyle were assembling a pallet rack, when the plaintiff's hand was squashed between the pallet rack and the wall. Plaintiff testified that he jerked his hand out, but Mr. Pyle and Mr. Looney both testified that Mr. Looney immediately pulled the rack back, releasing the plaintiff's hand. Plaintiff further testified that he began to feel pain in his shoulder within ten to fifteen minutes after the incident and that he complained to his co-workers about it. However, all of the defendant's witnesses testified that he did not mention any shoulder pain to them until approximately three weeks after the accident. Plaintiff continued to work very long hours until October 1, 1993, as the defendant was moving from its location in Bristol, Virginia to a new office in Bristol, Tennessee. The accident occurred during the move. 2

Richard Hitchcock v. WaUSAu Insurance Companies, et al.
01S01-9612-CH-00250
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert S. Brandt,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the Second Injury Fund (the fund) contends (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled, and (2) that it was error to approve a settlement between the employee and employer under the circumstances. The claimant contends the objection to the settlement comes too late. As discussed below, the panel has concluded both judgments should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration. The employee or claimant, Hitchcock, is forty-two and a high school graduate. On October 14, 1993, he suffered a compensable back injury while employed as a warehouseman for the employer, Service America. He has since had three back operations. The operating surgeon has released him to return to work with lifting, twisting and bending restrictions and assigned a permanent impairment rating of twelve percent to the whole body. On September 5, 1995, the trial court approved a settlement between the claimant and his employer, whereby the claimant received permanent partial disability benefits based on forty-five percent to the body as a whole, paid in a lump sum. The fund did not participate in the settlement. The claimant's return to work has been complicated by two pre- existing conditions, blindness in one eye and limited side vision in the other, and a prior carpal tunnel release. A vocational expert testified the claimant is capable, in his disabled condition, of performing medium or light sedentary work. At the time of the trial, the claimant was in fact employed by Opryland as a cashier. After a trial in which the Second Injury Fund was the only defendant, the trial court found the claimant to be permanently and totally disabled and found the fund liable, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 28(a), for benefits at the claimant's compensation rate from the date the claimant reached maximum medical improvement from the injury until the claimant reaches age sixty-five. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the evidence to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

State of Tennessee vs. Lester Lee Doyle
02C01-9612-CC-00461
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The defendant, Lester Lee Doyle, was convicted by a Benton County jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, and driving on a revoked license. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm the conviction.

James C. Hise, Jr. and wife, Brenda L. Hise, State of Tennessee, Department of Transportationm Bruce Saltsman, Commissioner
02A01-9701-CV-00023
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

James C. Hise, Jr. and wife, Brenda L. Hise sued the State of Tennessee, the Department of Transportation and its commissioner for damages in an inverse condemnation action. The complaint alleges that, after conveying a portion of their property to the state, they learned that the project adversely impacted their commercial property. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity. The motion was granted and the plaintiffs appealed.

State of Tennessee vs. Jackie Crowe
03C01-9609-CR-00331
Authoring Judge: Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mayo L. Mashburn

The defendant was convicted by jury of two counts of rape and two counts of incest. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve (12) years for each rape conviction and to six (6) years for each incest conviction to the custody of the Department of Correction. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the rape convictions consecutive to each other and consecutive to prior unserved sentences but concurrent with the incest convictions. The trial court also imposed fines in the amount of $25,000 for each rape conviction and $10,000 for each incest conviction.

Amberjack Ltd., Inc., D/B/A Nonconnah Corporate Center, v. Fred Thompson, Individually, and D/B/A Thompson Quality Management, Inc., et al.
02A01-9512-CV-00281
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Swearengen

This lawsuit involves the breach of a lease agreement. The corporate lessee vacated the premises and stopped paying rent; consequently, the lessor filed suit. The trial court found the lessee in breach of the lease, but found the lease agreement unconscionable, held that the lessor failed to mitigate its damages, and held that the president of the corporate lessee could not be held personally liable. We affirm the trial court’s finding of a breach, but reverse its remaining findings and award the lessor damages for the entire term of the lease.

State of Tennessee vs. Hollis G. Williams
02C01-9602-CR-00048
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe B. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

The appellant, Hollis G. Williams (defendant), was convicted of first-degree felony murder by a jury of his peers. The State of Tennessee sought the extreme penalty of death. However, the jury set his punishment at life without the possibility of parole. The defendant presents three issues for review. He contends (a) the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support his conviction for a murder committed during an attempt to commit robbery, (b) the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by ruling his two convictions for attempt to commit robbery could be used to impeach him if he opted to testify in support of his defense, and (c) the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by permitting the state to introduce victim impact testimony during the sentencing hearing. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, it is the opinion of this Court the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

State of Tennessee vs. John ParnellYaugher
03C01-9509-CC-00286
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge James B. Scott, Jr.

The Defendant, John Parnell Yaugher, appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant was convicted following a jury trial in Anderson County of the offense of rape of a child. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the allegations in the indictment to charge an offense. Also, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and specifically argues that his confession was uncorroborated, that there was no proof of penetration, and that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was sane at the time of the offense. Furth er, the Defendant argu es that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress his statement to investigators and by charging in the jury instructions the lesser grade offense of aggravated sexual battery. Finding no
error, and that the indictment and the evidence are sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Betty D. Levandowski
03S01-9611-CR-000116
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

In this appeal,1 we must determine whether a false response from an individual to an inquiry made by a law enforcement officer constitutes a false report within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-502(a)(1) (1991). After careful review, we hold that § 39-16-502(a)(1) applies to statements volunteered or initiated by an individual but does not apply to statements made in response to inquiries by law enforcement officers. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Merlin Eugene Shuck
03S01-9607-CC-00071
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper

The defendant, Merlin Eugene Shuck, was convicted of one count of solicitation to commit first degree murder and two counts of solicitation to commit especially aggravated kidnaping. The defense theory at trial was entrapment, and in support of that defense, Shuck sought to introduce expert testimony from a neuropsychologist that he had suffered a cognitive decline and significant
deterioration of his cognitive abilities which rendered him more susceptible to inducement than the average person. The trial judge refused to admit the testimony finding that it would invade the province of the jury. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial. Thereafter, we granted the State permission to appeal to consider whether expert psychological testimony about a defendant’s susceptibility to inducment is admissible under Tennessee law to establish entrapment.