State of Tennessee v. Kortney Ball
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Judge Timothy L. Easter
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Criminal appeal - conviction affirmed
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Criminal defendant's conviction affirmed on appeal. Trial court's conviction for DUI, retaliation for past action, assault, and resisting arrest upheld with effective sentence of two years (six months incarceration, balance on supervised probation).
Excerpt
Defendant was convicted by a Rutherford County Jury of driving under the influence ("DUI"), retaliation for past action, assault, and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of two years, of which Defendant was ordered to serve six months in incarceration and the balance of the sentence on supervised probation. Defendant appeals his conviction for retaliation for past action, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
What This Ruling Means
What Happened
This was a criminal case, not an employment dispute. Kortney Ball was charged with driving under the influence (DUI), retaliation for past action, assault, and resisting arrest. A jury in Rutherford County found Ball guilty on all charges. The trial court sentenced Ball to two years total - six months in jail and the rest on supervised probation. Ball appealed the conviction, specifically challenging the retaliation charge by arguing there wasn't enough evidence to support it.
What the Court Decided
The appeals court upheld Ball's conviction on all charges, including the retaliation count. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and affirmed the original sentence.
Why This Matters for Workers
While this case involved criminal charges rather than workplace issues, it demonstrates that "retaliation for past action" can be a serious legal matter. For workers, this serves as a reminder that retaliation - whether in criminal or employment contexts - is taken seriously by courts. However, workers should note that employment retaliation cases follow different laws and procedures than criminal cases like this one.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.