Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court concluded that the fair report privilege does not apply to a nonpublic, one-on-one conversation between a newspaper reporter and a detective of a county sheriff's department, who also served as the public information officer for the sheriff's department, holding that the privilege applies only to public proceedings or official actions of government that have been made public.Plaintiff sued the newspaper at issue here, alleging that the newspaper had published defamatory statements that the detective made about Plaintiff during a nonpublic, one-on-one conversation with the newspaper reporter. The trial court granted the newspaper summary judgment based on the fair report privilege. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the fair report privilege did not apply to the report at issue in this appeal. View "Burke v. Sparta Newspapers, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the court of criminal appeals' judgment vacating Defendant's sentence, holding that the amended theft grading statute was properly applied by the trial court even though the offense occurred before the amendment's effective date.In 2016, before Section 5 of the Public Safety Act of 2016 took effect and amended Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-105, the statute providing for grading of theft offenses, Defendant pleaded guilty to theft of property in the amount of $1,000 or more but not less than $10,000. The conviction was a Class D felony at the time of the offense. The trial court applied the amended version of the statute in sentencing Defendant after the amendment's effective date, which graded theft in the amount of $1,000 or less as a Class A misdemeanor. The court of criminal appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for entry of a sentence reflecting a conviction of a Class D felony. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the Criminal Savings Statute applies to the amendments to section 39-14-105, allowing a defendant convicted of an offense that occurred before the effective date of the Act to be sentenced under the amendments. View "State v. Menke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals vacating Defendant's sentence and remanding for entry of a sentence reflecting a conviction of a Class E felony, rather than a Class A misdemeanor, holding that that the trial court exceeded its authority in modifying the offense class and sentence pursuant to the amended version of Tenn. Code. Ann. 39-14-105 following the revocation of Defendant's probation.Before Section 5 of the Public Safety Act of 2016 took effect and amended Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-105, the statute providing for grading of theft offenses, Defendant pleaded guilty to theft of property in the amount of $500 but less than $1,000. The conviction was a Class E felony at the time of the offense. Following the revocation of Defendant's probation the trial court applied the amended version of section 39-14-105, which graded Defendant's offense as a Class A misdemeanor, and imposed a misdemeanor sentence. The court of criminal appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for entry of a sentence reflecting a conviction of a Class E felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred in modifying the offense class and sentence pursuant to the amended version of the theft grading statute. View "State v. Tolle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals vacating Defendant's sentence and remanding for entry of a sentence reflecting a conviction of a Class D felony, rather than a Class E felony, holding that the Criminal Savings Statute applies to the amendments to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-105.Before Section 5 of the Public Safety Act of 2016 took effect and amended Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-105, the statute providing for grading of theft offenses, Defendant was convicted of theft of property in the amount of $1,000 or more but not less than $10,000. The conviction was a Class D felony at the time of the offense. The trial court applied the amended version of the statute in sentencing Defendant before the amendment's effective date, which graded theft of more than $1,000 but less than $2,500 as a Class E felony. The court of criminal appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for entry of a sentence reflecting a conviction of a Class D felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Criminal Savings Statute applies to the amendments to the theft grading statute, section 39-14-105; and (2) the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant under the amended version of the statute prior to its effective date. View "State v. Keese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of criminal appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' motion to suppress, holding that the warrantless search of a probationer's residence who is subject to a search condition does not require officers to have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity prior to conducting the search.Law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of the residence of a probationer and her husband, resulting in the discovery of illegal drugs and drug-related contraband. Pursuant to probation conditions imposed in a previous case, the probationer had agreed to a warrantless search of her person, property, or vehicle at any time. In affirming the trial court's decision to grant Defendants' motion to suppress, the court of criminal appeals concluded that the State was required to have reasonable suspicion to support the probation search and that the State lacked such suspicion in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because of the probation conditions to which the probationer was subject, the probation search of portions of the probationer's residence was constitutionally allowable; and (2) the search of probationer's husband's personal belongings located within Defendants' shared bedroom was proper pursuant to the doctrine of common authority. View "State v. Hamm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of five separate misdemeanor thefts aggregated into a single Class D felony, holding that the separate misdemeanor thefts were properly aggregated into a single felony charge and that the evidence sufficiently established that the separate thefts arose from a common scheme, purpose, intent, or enterprise.The separate misdemeanor thefts were aggregated into a single felony count pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-105(b)(1), which provides that, in a prosecution for theft of property, the State may charge multiple criminal acts committed against one or more victims as a single count of the criminal acts arose from a common scheme, purpose, intent or enterprise. On appeal, Defendant argued that the separate thefts may be aggregated only when the thefts are from the same owner, from the same location, and pursuant to a continuing criminal impulse or a single sustained larcenous scheme. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the statutory aggregation provision does not incorporate the limitations expressed in Byrd, and the aggregation of the five alleged thefts into one count in this case was not improper; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to aggregate the five alleged thefts into one count. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a handgun, holding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request for a jury instruction on the defense of necessity.The evidence presented at Defendant's criminal trial indicated that Defendant obtained a handgun during a physical altercation, during which the handgun fell from another individual's possession and dropped to the floor. The trial court denied Defendant's request for an instruction the defense of necessity. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, holding (1) the defense of necessity was fairly raised by the evidence, and the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury accordingly; and (2) Tennessee law does not preclude plenary review of a claim of error based on a trial court's failure to instruct the jury on a general defense when the request was not made in writing. View "State v. Cole-Pugh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding, among other things, that Employee was not permanently and totally disabled after suffering an injury to her left shoulder and awarding temporary total disability benefits from the date of her left shoulder surgery through the date of her voluntary resignation, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's decisions.Employee, who worked for Employer as a shuttle truck driver, sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder and wrist in August 2010. For this injury Employee entered into a settlement agreement with Employer. After returning to work, in January 2013, Employee suffered an injury to her left shoulder. In March 2015, Employee voluntarily resigned. The trial court ruled (1) Employee was not permanently and totally disabled; (2) because of Employee's voluntary resignation, the 1.5 times cap applied for purposes of reconsideration of the 2010 injury and assessment of the 2013 injury; (3) Employee had a six percent medical impairment rating for the 2013 injury; (4) Employer was not responsible for expenses related to treatment Employee sought on her own; and (5) Employee was entitled to temporary total disability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings. View "Bain v. UTI Integrated Logistics LLC" on Justia Law

In this declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying a claimant's motion to set aside a default judgment in favor of an insurance company and allow the claimant to intervene as a necessary party, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the claimant was not a necessary party and the trial court could decide the coverage dispute between the insurance company and its insured without the claimant's participation in the action.The claimant sued the insured for damages arising from an automobile accident. The insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that the company was not required to provide liability coverage to the insured. The trial court awarded the insurance company a default judgment. The claimant moved to set aside the default judgment and allow her to intervene on the basis that she was a necessary party. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the claimant had no interest affected by the dispute between the insurance company and its insured; and (2) therefore, the trial court had authority to grant declaratory relief because all necessary parties were before the court. View "Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Debruce" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, who represented Plaintiff in her divorce, and dismissing Plaintiff's legal malpractice action, holding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of judicial estoppel.Plaintiff asserted in her complaint that the attorney's actions during the divorce proceedings so compromised her position that she was forced to settle on unfavorable terms. Citing Plaintiff's sworn acknowledgment in her marital dissolution agreement that the divorce settlement was fair and equitable, the trial court concluded that Plaintiff was estopped from asserting that the divorce settlement terms were unfavorable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the statements by Plaintiff were not the type of sworn statements that are proscribed under the doctrine of judicial estoppel; and (2) therefore, the trial court erred in holding that judicial estoppel precluded Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim against Defendant. View "Kershaw v. Levy" on Justia Law