Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of stalking. The conviction was based, in part, on Defendant’s act of posting disparaging signs about the victim on the victim’s private property and on the property of the victim's employer, the Maury County Board of Education. Defendant appealed, arguing that her conviction violated her First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain Defendant’s conviction for the criminal offense of stalking. This holding necessarily pretermitted discussion of whether Defendant’s right to free speech was violated. View "State v. Flowers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s husband collapsed and died after participating in an exercise class at a fitness facility owned and operated by Church. Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against Church alleging that Church negligently failed to utilize the automated external defibrillator (AED) on site that the facility, to train facility personnel on the proper use of the AED, and to comply with applicable state statutes. Church filed a third-party complaint against the company that sold it the AED (Seller), alleging that, should Plaintiff recover a judgment against it for failing to comply with statutes, Seller should be solely responsible for the judgment. Plaintiff then filed a second complaint naming Seller as a defendant. Seller moved for summary judgment against Plaintiff and Church, arguing that it owed no duty of care to Plaintiff or her husband. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Seller did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff’s husband or other users of the fitness facility independent of its contract with Church; and (2) Church had no duty to acquire or use the AED it purchased from Seller, and therefore, Plaintiff’s husband was not a third-party beneficiary of Church’s contract with Seller. Remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Seller. View "Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist Church" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and facilitation of aggravated rape. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences of death, holding (1) Defendant’s claims of evidentiary error were without merit; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the victims’ family members to wear buttons containing images of the victims; (3) the trial court properly effectuated merger of the convictions; (4) the sentences of death were not imposed in an arbitrary fashion; and (5) Defendant’s death sentences were neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. View "State v. Davidson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of facilitation of possession with intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, an offense proscribed by Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-417. Because the jury found that the facilitation occurred within 1,000 feet of a school, the trial court concluded that the Drug-Free School Zone Act applied, thus increasing Defendant’s felony classification and requiring service of the entire minimum sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the Act applied to a conviction for facilitation and that there was sufficient evidence to support the facilitation conviction. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the trial court erred in applying the Act to Defendant’s conviction for facilitation by requiring service of the entire minimum sentence and by increasing the felony classification; and (2) the State’s evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt on the lesser-included offense of facilitation of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of nine counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, thirteen counts of observation without consent, and other offenses arising from his hidden-camera videotaping of his twelve-year-old daughter and her teenage friend while they were in various states of undress. Defendant appealed his convictions for especially aggravated sexual exploitation and his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding that the hidden-camera videos constituted child pornography prohibited under the child sexual exploitation statutes. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Defendant’s convictions for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, holding (1) the use of the six specific factors set forth in United States v. Dost as a “test” or analytical framework in assessing whether material is prohibited under the three child sexual exploitation statutes is hereby rejected; (2) the material at issue must be evaluated based on what is depicted, without reference to the defendant’s subjective intent; and (3) under the correct framework, the videos taken by Defendant do not include a minor engaging in a lascivious exhibition, and therefore, the videos are insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for especially aggravated child sexual exploitation. View "State v. Whited" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide and other crimes arising from a single-vehicle accident that killed two occupants of the vehicle. Defendant filed a motion to suppress any evidence derived from a blood sample obtained from her without a warrant the night of the accident. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant had orally consented to the blood draw. Defendant then filed a second motion to suppress. The trial court granted Defendant’s second motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant had not actually consented to the blood draw and that the police lacked reasonable grounds to believe Defendant was driving under the influence, which was required under the implied consent statute to justify the warrantless blood draw. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the police had probable cause to believe that Defendant was driving while intoxicated at the time of the accident, and thus, the implied consent statute was triggered. View "State v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Defendant drove a car he had rented from Enterprise Rent-A-Car (Enterprise) into Plaintiff’s knee. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was insured under a policy issued by IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company (IDS), which provided uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, Defendant’s automobile liability insurer, and Enterprise. Plaintiff also served IDS with a copy of the summons and complaint for the purpose of bringing a claim under his uninsured motorist coverage policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of IDS, concluding that the rental car did not qualify as an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the policy. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the rental car was an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the policy. Remanded. View "Martin v. Powers" on Justia Law

A five-count indictment charged Defendant with several felonies and with employment a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. A jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. Defendant appealed, arguing that the indictment for the firearm charge must be dismissed because it did not designate the predicate felony for the firearm charge. The Court of Criminal Appeals (1) reversed the conviction and dismissed the charge of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felon, holding that the indictment on the firearm charge did not meet constitutional requirements; and (2) affirmed the remaining convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) considering the entire indictment, the count of the indictment charging Defendant with employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony was sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement; but (2) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on the charge of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Remanded for a new trial on that charge. View "State v. Duncan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carjacking and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the victim’s identification of him; (2) the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury on possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony as a lesser-included offense of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; (3) the failure to name the predicate felony of the firearm offense does not void that count of the indictment; (4) Defendant’s convictions for carjacking and employment a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony did not violate double jeopardy or the terms of Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1324(c); and (5) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of rape of a child. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that aggravated sexual battery is not a lesser-included offense of rape of a child and vacated this conviction on the grounds that the legislature did not include it in the 2009 amendments to Tenn. Code Ann. section 40-18-110. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) aggravated sexual battery is a lesser-included offense of rape of a child; and (2) Defendant’s conviction for aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of rape of a child was supported by the evidence and should be reinstated. The Court affirmed the remaining issues decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law