State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom AKA Otis Smith - Concurring/Dissenting
I fully concur in the majority’s decision affirming the conviction in this case. I also agree with the majority that the trial court’s refusal to admit into evidence as mitigation the testimony of Dr. John Hutson was error which requires a reversal and a remand for re-sentencing. However, I dissent from the majority’s analysis of the constitutionality and sufficiency of the evidence to support the aggravating circumstance, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5), as amended in 1989. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom - Concurring/Dissenting
I fully concur in the majority’s decision affirming the conviction in this case. I also agree with the majority that the trial court’s refusal to admit into evidence as mitigation the testimony of Dr. John Hutson was error which requires a reversal and a remand for re-sentencing. However, I dissent from the majority’s analysis of the constitutionality and sufficiency of the evidence to support the aggravating circumstance, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5), as amended in 1989. |
Jackson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennesee v. Mario Lamont Wilson
A jury convicted defendant, Mario Lamont Wilson, of three counts of aggravated assault and of felony reckless endangerment and possession of a deadly weapon with the intent to commit a felony. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Wilson’s felony reckless endangerment conviction and sentence, but reversed and dismissed the convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a deadly weapon. We granted permission to appeal to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it dismissed Wilson’s convictions for aggravated assault.1 Although we conclude that Wilson’s convictions for aggravated assault may not stand, we do not adopt entirely the reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Rather, we affirm the dismissal of the aggravated assault charges because the evidence is insufficient to prove that Wilson intentionally and knowingly caused another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury. |
Madison | Supreme Court | |
Lillian D. Vega-Horta, et al., v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al.
Plaintiff, Lillian Vega-Horta (“plaintiff”), appeals the judgment of the trial court granting defendant’s, St. Mary’s Medical Center (“St. Mary’s”) Motion for Summary Judgment. For reasons state hereinafter, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9411-CV-00255
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9412-CV-00269
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9412-CV-00269
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9410-CH-00232
|
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9505-CH-00218
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9512-CH-00562
|
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Vicky v. Klein
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Recent Case of Gene v. Aaby v. Judy Aaby Strange, ____S.W.2D____,
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Ester v. Hayes And
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9601-CH-00033
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9512-CV-00448
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9601-CV-00003
|
Court of Appeals | ||
State vs. Joseph Tipler
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9508-CC-00228
|
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9503-CR-00075
|
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9507-CR-00206
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02A01-9411-CH-00261
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9411-CH-00262
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9511-CH-00258
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher v. Sockwell
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9501-CR-00007
|
Supreme Court |