APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted review in this case to determine whether a landowner can bring a nuisance action against an adjoining landowner when tree branches and roots from the adjoining landowner's property encroach upon and damage the neighboring landowner's property. The plaintiff asserts that encroaching branches and roots from the defendant's trees constitute a nuisance for which she is entitled to seek damages. The defendant responds that the plaintiff's sole remedy is self-help and, therefore, the plaintiff may not recover for any harm caused by the defendant's trees. The trial court and Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, and held that an adjoining landowner's only remedy is self-help and that a nuisance action cannot be brought to recover for harm caused by encroaching tree branches and roots. We have determined that self-help is not the sole remedy of an adjoining landowner and that a nuisance action may be brought when tree branches and roots from the adjacent property encroach upon and damage the neighboring landowner's property. Although encroaching trees and plants are not nuisances merely because they cast shade, drop leaves, flowers, or fruit, or just because they encroach upon adjoining property either above or below the ground, they may be regarded as a nuisance when they cause actual harm or pose an imminent danger of actual harm to adjoining property. If so, the owner of the tree or plant may be held responsible for harm caused by it and may also be required to cut back the encroaching branches or roots, assuming the encroaching vegetation constitutes a nuisance. We do not, however, alter existing Tennessee law that the adjoining landowner may, at his own expense, cut away the encroaching vegetation to the property line whether or not the encroaching vegetation constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise causing harm or potential harm to the adjoining property. We further find that the record in this case is sufficient to establish liability for nuisance. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for a determination of damages and other appropriate relief.

Glenda Ponder appeals the DeKalb County Criminal Court's revocation of her probationary sentence and ordering into effect her incarcerative sentence in the Department of Correction. Upon review, we are unpersuaded that the lower court abused its discretion and therefore affirm.

In this workers' compensation case, we granted the defendant's motion for review pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e) primarily to determine whether the trial court erred by finding that the two and one-half times cap on the permanent partial disability award set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(1) did not apply, where the plaintiff was fired by the employer for gross misconduct prior to being treated for her injury. We hold that an employer should be permitted to enforce workplace rules without being penalized in a workers' compensation case. Thus, the trial court erred in refusing to apply the two and one-half times cap found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(1). Furthermore, under our review, where expert medical testimony is by deposition, we may draw our own conclusions about the weight and credibility to be given to the medical testimony. Given the disagreement between the evaluating and treating physicians over the surgical procedure performed on the plaintiff, we are of the opinion that the physician who actually performed the surgery was better situated to understand and rate the resulting impairment. We adopt the medical impairment rating of the treating physician, equating to 6% to the body as a whole and set the plaintiff's permanent partial disability at 15% to the body as a whole.

Davidson County -In this case, we must decide whether a pay telephone sale-leaseback program marketed and sold by the plaintiff constitutes an investment contract, and thus a security under the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980. In finding that the program was a security, the trial court applied the definition of "investment contract" adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1996). Under this test, an investment contract exists where (1) An offeree furnishes initial value to an offeror, and (2) a portion of this initial value is subjected to the risks of the enterprise, and (3) the furnishing of the initial value is induced by the offeror's promises or representations which give rise to a reasonable understanding that a valuable benefit of some kind, over and above the initial value, will accrue to the offeree as a result of the operation of the enterprise, and (4) the offeree does not receive the right to exercise practical and actual control over the managerial decisions of the enterprise. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d at 11 (quoting State v. Hawaii Market, 485 P.2d 105, 109 (Haw. 1971)). The Court of Appeals rejected the Brewer test and instead adopted the federal test for determining whether a particular transaction is an investment contract. See United Hous. Found., Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975); SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). Applying this test, the Court of Appeals held that the pay telephone sale-leaseback program at issue in this case is not a security. After careful consideration, we agree with the trial court's finding that the appropriate test for determining the presence of an investment contract is set forth in Brewer. Applying this test, we agree with the trial court that the plaintiff's payphone sale-leaseback program is an investment contract and that the plaintiff was thus marketing and selling unregistered securities in violation of Tennessee law.

The defendant, Ricky Lee Inscore, pled nolo contendere to aggravated burglary and sexual battery. The Sullivan County trial court sentenced the defendant to three years for aggravated burglary and two years for sexual battery as a Range I standard offender to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant presents the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying him probation or alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the defendant, Dondie Eugene Tidwell, of two counts of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of theft over $10,000. The trial court merged the defendant’s two first degree murder convictions and ordered the defendant to serve twenty-three years for his conspiracy to commit first degree murder conviction, twenty-three years for his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, and four years and six months for his theft conviction.  The trial court ordered these sentences to run concurrently to each other and consecutively to the defendant’s sentence for his merged first degree murder conviction, life without the possibility of parole. Thus, the defendant received an aggregate sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus twenty-three years. The defendant now brings this appeal, challenging his convictions and his sentence on the bases that (1) the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to excuse a juror using a peremptory challenge; (2) the evidence introduced at trial is insufficient to support his convictions; (3) the prosecutor made inappropriate comments when delivering the state’s opening statement; (4) the trial court erred by allowing an expert to testify on subjects beyond the scope of that witness’s expertise; (5) the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to introduce evidence of the drugs that were present in the victim’s system at the time of the victim’s death; (6) the trial court instructed the jury incorrectly on the charge of conspiracy; (7) the trial court erred by admitting a photograph of the victim taken after the victim’s death during the sentencing phase of the trial; (8) the trial court erred by refusing, in the sentencing phase, to allow the defendant to compare his potential sentence to the sentence received by his co-conspirator; (9) the trial court erred by allowing the introduction of certain hearsay evidence; (10) the prosecutor exceeded the permissible scope of his rebuttal closing argument; and (11) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentencing. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did err by refusing to allow the defendant to exercise a peremptory challenge and that therefore the defendant is entitled to a new trial on this basis.
However, we find that the remainder of the issues presented in this appeal have either been waived or lack merit.

On February 2, 2000, the defendant was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated robbery. He received a sentence of nine years in the state penitentiary. In this appeal he raises eight (8) issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the defendant was tried by a fair and impartial jury; (3) whether the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on the offenses of assault or aggravated assault; (4) whether there was prosecutorial misconduct; (5) whether the defendant was subjected to a constitutionally flawed show-up shortly after the robbery; (6) whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury as to what they must do if they have a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the requisite mental state for the offense; (7) whether the trial court should have dismissed the case because the state destroyed evidence fundamental to the defense; (8) whether the defendant's sentence is excessive.

Defendant attempted to shoot and kill Johnny Maxwell, missed, and accidentally shot twelve-year-old Brittney Taylor, seriously injuring her. A jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder of Maxwell and attempted first degree murder of Taylor. He appeals, claiming the trial court erroneously charged the jury, relative to the doctrine of transferred intent; that double jeopardy bars convictions of both offense; and the evidence was insufficient to sustain the attempted first degree murder convictions. We agree and affirm both convictions.

The petitioner, James Darrell Horn, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's denial of post-conviction relief. In his post-conviction petition, the petitioner challenged his jury convictions on more than 30 aggravated burglary counts and nearly as many theft counts. As a result of his many convictions, the petitioner is serving an effective 90-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On direct appeal, his convictions and sentences were affirmed by this court. See State v. James D. Horn, No. 03C01-9712-CR-00537 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jul. 20, 1999), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2000). The petitioner asserted that his previous appellate counsel was ineffective because she did not raise on direct appeal whether the trial court (1) erred in not suppressing the petitioner's pretrial statements and (2) in not suppressing physical evidence seized during a warrantless search of his residence. He also claimed that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective because they did not properly challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on three or four specific counts of the indictments. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a very thorough order denying post-conviction relief. Upon our review, we affirm.

The defendant, Richard Bokanper, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of burglary and theft. Following the guilty verdicts, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a career offender to an effective term of twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because the evidence insufficiently corroborates the inculpative testimony of an accomplice, we reverse the convictions and dismiss the charges.

In December 1997, the defendant was convicted of the sale of cocaine over .5 grams, a Class B felony, and sentenced to eight years, with all but sixty days suspended, and the balance to be served on probation. In October 1998, his probation was revoked because he was convicted that year of possession of marijuana, criminal impersonation, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was incarcerated for ninety days and again placed on probation, this time in community corrections. In December 1998, another probation violation warrant was issued, this time alleging that the defendant had absconded. In September 1999, his probation was revoked and he was ordered to serve the balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction. Apparently, he was again placed on probation, with the case transferred to Michigan. In April 2001, another probation warrant was issued, charging the defendant with failing two drug screens and attempting to adulterate a drug screen. Following a hearing, the court revoked the defendant's probation and he timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Brenda McKenzie, pled guilty in the Chester County Circuit Court to one count of facilitating the manufacture of methamphetamine and one count of possession of anhydrous ammonia, both Class E felonies. The plea agreement provided for concurrent sentences of two years to be served on community corrections. The appellant moved the trial court to waive or suspend the mandatory fines on both offenses. The court denied the motion and the appellant now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.