APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Auto Credit failed to give Ms. Wimmer reasonable notice of the scheduled sale of the collateral.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a state prisoner. After drugs were discovered in the inmate’s incoming mail, he was sentenced to punitive segregation. He sought review of his conviction in the Shelby County Chancery Court, which later dismissed his case without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The inmate filed a notice of appeal which we have determined was untimely and therefore a nullity. As a result, we must dismiss this appeal without considering the issues presented by the Petitioner.

A woman bought a used automobile, financing the purchase with a loan from the plaintiff credit company. The loan was secured through a UCC Article 9 security interest in the vehicle. When the buyer fell behind in her payments, the creditor repossessed the car and sent her notice by certified mail that it intended to sell the car and that she would face a deficiency judgment if the sale price was less than the amount she still owed. She did not receive the notice, and the certified letter was returned unclaimed to the creditor the day after the sale. The creditor sued for a deficiency of over $3,400, and the circuit court granted it judgment for the amount claimed. The buyer sought statutory damages under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-625 arguing that the attempted notice was inadequate, and the trial court dismissed her counterclaim. The buyer appeals this dismissal. We reverse the trial court because we find Auto Credit did not act reasonably in proceeding to sell the car without affirming that the notice had in fact been delivered.

Employment of a ShelbyCountyDeputy Sheriff was terminated and the decision was upheld by the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The employee filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court of Shelby County. The administrative record was duly filed in the trial court.
Subsequently, the chancery court entered an order denying writ of certiorari. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, Leslie A. Pryor, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one count of theft over $10,000, one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, one count of felony evading arrest, one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, three counts of reckless endangerment, and one count of criminal impersonation. The trial court merged the reckless endangerment and attempted voluntary manslaughter convictions with the greater charge of aggravated assault, and the defendant was given an effective sentence of forty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated assault. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I concur in the reasoning and result reached in the majority opinion save in one area. I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that the defendant’s right to confrontation was forfeited by virtue of his wrongfully killing the victim. The majority opinion essentially holds that wrongfully causing the victim’s unavailability to testify at the defendant’s trial for murdering the victim forfeits the defendant’s right to confrontation, which allows all relevant statements by the victim to be admitted into evidence. I believe the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine should require that the defendant procure the absence of the declarant with the intent that the declarant not be a witness.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Judge Brooks, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellant claims (1) that the trial court improperly admitted the victim’s prior statements into evidence under the hearsay rule’s forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), and in violation of the Confrontation Clause; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the appellant’s prior assault on the victim pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); and (3) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. While we conclude that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay into evidence, we conclude that the error was harmless and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Trial Court granted contestants of a Will summary judgment, voiding the Will. On appeal, we vacate the summary judgment.

In these consolidated workers’ compensation appeals, we are asked to decide the constitutionality of various provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 2004. Specifically at issue is whether the benefit review conference requirement embodied in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 50-6-203(a) (2005), 50-6-225(a)(1) (2005), and 50-6-239(b) (2005), violates the due process protections of the Tennessee or United States Constitutions, the separation of powers doctrine in article II, sections 1 and 2 of Tennessee’s Constitution, or the open courts doctrine found in article I, section 17, of the Tennessee Constitution. Additionally, we are asked to decide whether the method used to determine permanent partial disability benefits, namely the multiplier provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) (2005) used in conjunction with the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (“AMA Guides”), violates equal protection; due process; the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-21-101 (2005); and the Tennessee Handicap Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-50-103(a) (2002). The trial judge determined that each of these provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 2004–the benefit review conference, the multiplier, and use of the AMA Guides–is unconstitutional. After carefully considering the record and relevant authority, we conclude that the trial judge erred. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are reversed.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings as to causation and extent of permanent partial disability. The employer further insists the claim should have been dismissed by the trial court because the injured worker failed to give timely written notice. We conclude the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
William Eric Brewer suffered a work-related injury December 17, 2001, while employed at the
Courier Chronicle. The Hartford, the defendant, is the workers’ compensation insurance carrier
of the employer and has litigated this case in its individual name. The defendant contends that the
trial court erred when it failed to find that Mr. Brewer’s injury was proximately caused by his
voluntary intoxication. After carefully considering the record, we affirm the trial court and
conclude that the defendant failed to prove that the voluntary intoxication was a proximate cause
of Mr. Brewer’s accident.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Phillip Brow, has appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his
workers’ compensation claim. He contends that the trial court erred when it failed to award him
workers’ compensation benefits as a result of a fall at work that he contends aggravated a
pre-existing shoulder condition. After carefully considering the record, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.

This appeal involves a dispute between a credit and charge card issuer and two cardholders regarding allegedly unauthorized charges to their accounts by entities affiliated with the issuer. The cardholders filed a class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Williamson County asserting that the practice of charging them for goods and services they did not agree to purchase constituted an unfair and deceptive trade practice prohibited by various state consumer protection laws and gave rise to causes of action for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The issuer and its affiliates filed a motion to compel separate arbitrations against each cardholder in accordance with the class arbitration waiver clause of the arbitration provision in the cardmember agreements. The cardholders conceded that they were required to arbitrate their claims but asked the trial court to strike the class arbitration waiver clause as unconscionable. Siding with the cardholders, the trial court struck the class arbitration waiver clause and granted the motion to compel arbitration. The issuer and its affiliates appealed. We have concluded that the trial court did not err by granting the motion to compel arbitration. However, we have also concluded that the trial court erred by finding the class arbitration waiver clause unconscionable under Utah law.

The petitioner, Antonio Young, appeals from the order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Plaintiffs James W. McDonnell, Jr., Faith McDonnell Campbell, Anne McDonnell Durell, and James W. McDonnell, III, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment holding that their causes of action are barred by applicable statutes of limitation. Because we find that the trial court failed to execute a final order disposing of all of Plaintiffs’ asserted causes of action, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 3(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Trial Court held that the easement at issue in this case had been abandoned. On appeal, we affirm.

We granted these appeals to determine whether the extraction of blood from a convicted and incarcerated felon for DNA analysis pursuant to Tennessee’s DNA collection statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-321 (2003), is constitutional under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. These three cases come before us upon Defendant Scarborough’s interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and upon Defendant Transou’s direct appeals from his convictions in two separate cases. Transou also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of rape and aggravated burglary in one of his cases and the sentences he received for those offenses. We conclude that the DNA collection statute is constitutional as applied here. We further hold that Transou consented to having his blood drawn; that the evidence is sufficient to support Transou’s convictions of rape and aggravated burglary; and that his sentences for those crimes are valid. The judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeals in all three cases are affirmed.

The defendant, Earnest Banks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated burglary and sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted this appeal to determine (1) whether a life insurance policy purchased by the insured as part of a divorce decree had been terminated before the insured’s death; and (2) whether the insurer or the insurance agent was negligent in failing to prevent the policy from lapsing after the insured issued an oral stop payment order and failed to pay a monthly premium. The Chancery Court concluded that the policy had not been terminated, that the insurer and insurance agent were negligent, and that the proceeds of the policy were to be paid to the beneficiary. The Court of Appeals, reversing the Chancellor’s judgment, concluded that the policy had been backdated by agreement of the parties and had been terminated by the insured before his death. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the insurer and the insurance agent were not negligent because their actions were not a proximate cause of the damages. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the life insurance policy remained valid at the time of the insured’s death and that the beneficiary was entitled to the proceeds under the policy. However, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the insurer and the insurance agent were not negligent because there was no evidence that their acts were a proximate cause of the damages. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part for the reasons stated herein.

The defendant, Antonio Arnold, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and four evidentiary rulings of the trial court. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Henry Zillon Felts, the defendant, was convicted of attempted first degree murder (Class A felony) and aggravated burglary (Class C felony). The defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-one years at 100% in the Department of Correction. He now appeals as of right his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of conviction.

The defendant, Barry C. Melton, was convicted of facilitating the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, and possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia, Class A misdemeanors. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to two years for the felony conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the misdemeanor convictions, for a total effective sentence of two years, with sixty days to be served in confinement and the balance on probation. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his facilitation conviction and that he should have been granted full probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the result reached by the majority, and would affirm the judgment of the trial court. In 1978, based upon the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S. Ct. 2141 (1978), and Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S. Ct. 2151 (1978), the Tennessee Supreme Court held in State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978), that the thirteenth juror rule in Tennessee must be abolished, because it violated principles of double jeopardy.

A Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Kevin Hunter Biggs, of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eight years in the Department of Correction to be served at one hundred percent as a child rapist.¹  The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the successor trial judge was not qualified to act as thirteenth juror; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to include attempted aggravated sexual battery as a lesser included offense; (3) that the state withheld exculpatory information from the defendant in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963) and Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; (4) that the designated trial judge erred in concluding the defendant’s newly discovered evidence was not likely to change the result of the trial; and (5) that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and highly prejudicial character and hearsay testimony. Concluding that the successor trial judge could not act as the thirteenth juror, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the
case for a new trial.

The defendant, Latonya Taylor, was convicted by a jury of three counts of premeditated first degree murder and three counts of felony first degree murder. The latter three counts were merged with the premeditated first degree murders. The defendant was also convicted of especially aggravated robbery (Class A felony) and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping (Class A felony). An effective sentence of life without parole plus twenty years was imposed. She appeals the convictions. From our review of the record we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, and there being no other reversible errors, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.