Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first offense driving under the influence. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that the warrantless seizure of his parked vehicle and the ensuing field sobriety tests were not supported by reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding that the arresting officer’s activation of his patrol car’s rear blue lights was an exercise of the community caretaking function and not a seizure.The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court’s decision in State v. Moats, which held that the community caretaking doctrine is not an exception to the federal and state constitutional warrant requirements, was wrongly decided and is hearby overruled; (2) the community caretaking exception is an exception to the state and federal constitutional warrant requirements that may be invoked to validate as reasonable a warrantless seizure of an automobile; and (3) the community caretaking exception applies in this case. View "State v. McCormick" on Justia Law

American Heritage Apartments, Inc., a customer of the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County Authority), filed suit both individually and as a class representative asserting that the County Authority exceeded its statutory authority by imposing a monthly charge on its customers. The County Authority sought dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, arguing that a customer who seeks to dispute the rates charged must first follow the administrative procedures provided in the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). The trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the administrative procedures in Part 4 of the UDL do not apply to a rate challenge filed by an individual customer against a water and wastewater treatment authority, and therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (2) the trial court’s alternative ruling on class certification is vacated, and that issue is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration. View "Am. Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. Hamilton County Water & Wastewater Treatment Auth." on Justia Law

American Heritage Apartments, Inc., a customer of the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County Authority), filed suit both individually and as a class representative asserting that the County Authority exceeded its statutory authority by imposing a monthly charge on its customers. The County Authority sought dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, arguing that a customer who seeks to dispute the rates charged must first follow the administrative procedures provided in the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). The trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the administrative procedures in Part 4 of the UDL do not apply to a rate challenge filed by an individual customer against a water and wastewater treatment authority, and therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (2) the trial court’s alternative ruling on class certification is vacated, and that issue is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration. View "Am. Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. Hamilton County Water & Wastewater Treatment Auth." on Justia Law

In 1998, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner subsequently pursued collateral review without success. In 1990, the Tennessee General Assembly passed legislation providing that no defendant with an intellectual disability at the time of committing first-degree murder shall be sentenced to death. In 2012, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he was intellectually disabled within the meaning of the intellectual disability statute. Thereafter, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Keen v. State, in which the Court held that Coleman v. State did not provide a basis for reopening a postconviction proceeding in order to assess a capital defendant’s claim of intellectual disability. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition for relief from death sentences seeking relief pursuant to the error coram nobis statute and the intellectual disability statute. The trial court denied the motion to reopen and amended petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the procedural avenues by which Petitioner was seeking relief in this proceeding did not entitle him to the hearing he sought. View "Payne v. State" on Justia Law

Four university football players were indicted for criminal charges arising out of the alleged rape of a university student. Petitioners, a group of media organizations and a citizens group, made a Public Records Act request to inspect the police department’s files regarding its investigation of the football players. The police department denied the request. Petitioners filed a petition against the police department seeking access to the requested records under the Tennessee Public Records Act. The Court of Appeals concluded that all of the requested materials were relevant to a pending or contemplated criminal action and were therefore exempt from public disclosure under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) during the pendency of a criminal case and any collateral challenges to any conviction, Rule 16 governs the disclosure of information, and only the defendants, not the public, may receive information contained in the police investigative files; and (2) based on Rule 16, Petitioners have no right to the requested information during the pendency of the criminal cases and any collateral challenges to any convictions. View "The Tennessean v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated burglary and multiple counts of aggravated rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the post-conviction court’s judgment on Petitioner’s convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly request jury instructions on aggravated kidnapping as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated kidnapping. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals (1) erred in concluding that Petitioner was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on aggravated kidnapping; and (2) properly affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on Petitioner’s other convictions. View "Moore v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant within the extended statute of limitations set by a tolling agreement. Plaintiff voluntarily nonsuited the action and refiled it within one year but after the extended statute of limitations in the tolling agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, determining that the case was not timely filed. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the tolling agreement precluded application of the savings statute and, therefore, Plaintiff’s claims were barred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the parties’ agreement, the savings statute applied to save the suit that Plaintiff refiled after the extended statute of limitations set in the tolling agreement but within the one-year period provided by the savings statute. Remanded. View "Circle C. Constr., LLC v. Nilsen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of facilitation of first degree murder and one count of facilitation of aggravated robbery. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the admission into evidence of an autopsy report through the testimony of a medical examiner who did not perform the autopsy was not testimonial, so its admission into evidence did not violate Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause; (2) the responding officer’s initial entry into Defendant’s home was justified by exigent circumstances, and the subsequent entry into the home by other officers was a continuation of the responding officer’s entry into the home, and therefore, the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence that was in plain view and within the scope of the search; and (3) even if the trial court erred in admitting into evidence items that were not in plain view during the warrantless search, the error was harmless. View "State v. Hutchison" on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped after a police officer observed him cross the double yellow center lane lines with the two left wheels of his car. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arresting officer’s seizure of Defendant did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped after a police officer observed Defendant cross once and touch twice the fog line marking the outer right lane boundary on an interstate highway. Defendant was subsequently charged with alternative counts of driving under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the traffic stop of Defendant did not violate his constitutional rights because it was supported by reasonable suspicion. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law