Court Rulings

The Defendant, Ladarius Lockhart, was convicted of two counts of rape. The trial court merged the convictions and imposed a nine-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments. Upon reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

After a consolidated jury trial, the defendant, Shane Todd, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child and two counts of solicitation of a minor in case numbers 19425 and 19450. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-522, -528. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, claiming the jury was exposed to improper outside influence. The defendant also contends the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and the trial court's sentencing determinations resulted in an excessive forty-year sentence. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but note, in sentencing the defendant in case number 19450, the trial court interchanged the sentence terms on the judgment forms for counts one and two as ordered at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, we remand the case to the trial court for the entry of amended judgment forms as to counts one and two in case number 19450.

unemployment compensation—just cause—fault

This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff-employee's THRA and TPPA claims against two separate corporate entities—both of which the employee claimed were his employer. As to the employee's THRA claim, the trial court found that the evidence of harassment and discriminatory conduct was not so severe or pervasive so as to establish a hostile work environment. As to the employee's TPPA claim, the trial court found that the employer had a valid, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Additionally, the trial court found that the employee failed to establish that one of the entities was his employer for purpose of liability under either the THRA or the TPPA. Finding that the employee presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of disputed material fact as to both his THRA and TPPA claims against both entities, we vacate the trial court's order and remand the case to the trial court.

Motion to withdraw consent to termination of parental rights was untimely under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-45(6) because it was made more than thirty days after the order terminating parental rights was issued.

The Defendant, Anterrio Chambers, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony. He received an effective thirty-one-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court's failure to charge misdemeanor reckless endangerment as a lesser-included offense of attempted first degree murder, and the trial court's imposition of partial consecutive sentences. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the wife filed a petition requesting that the trial court hold the husband in civil contempt due to his noncompliance with the alimony provision in the parties' marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") and enter a judgment in favor of the wife representing the alimony arrearage and statutory interest. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the wife's petition without entering a monetary judgment against the husband, upon finding that although the husband had violated the alimony provision of the MDA, his failure to pay was not willful. The trial court also denied the wife's request for attorney's fees. Having determined that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding, we conclude that the husband's failure to comply with the alimony provision was willful. Upon further determination that the trial court erred in dismissing the wife's petition for civil contempt and a monetary award, we reverse.

Civ.R. 59 new trial manifest weight abuse of discretion. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for a new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59 where the manifest weight of the evidence did not support the jury's verdict that the defendant acted within the standard of care. The trial court's determination that insufficient credible evidence existed supporting the verdict was within its discretion.

Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43 moot non-existent metadata. Overview: Requester sought board meeting minutes, and asserted the purported minutes provided to him were either not authentic and/or were created after he made his requests. The special master found that the metadata and other evidence before the court did not disprove that respondent had provided the requested minutes. The special master recommended the court dismiss the action as moot. Requester filed objections. Outcome: The court found no error of law or other defect on the face of the special master's decision and adopted the report and recommendation as its own.

The Appellant, Darrell Adams, is appealing the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

homeowner and a contractor entered into a contract requiring the contractor to repair damage to the homeowner's house caused by a kitchen fire. The repairs to be performed were those covered by the homeowner's insurance policy as outlined in a detailed estimate of repair work. After the contractor abandoned the project, the homeowner hired another contractor to complete the work and sued the original contractor for breach of contract. We affirm the decision of the trial court to the extent of the court's determination that the contractor breached the contract by his undue delay and poor workmanship. We have concluded, however, that the trial court's decision fails to adequately explain the award of damages or to dispose of the contractor's counterclaim. Therefore, we vacate the damages award and remand for more specific findings regarding the basis for the damages award and a disposition of the counterclaim.

The Defendant, Timothy Leron Brown, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony while having prior felony convictions, theft of property valued less than $500, and failure to appear. The Defendant received an effective sentence of life plus thirty-one years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence of his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and theft, (2) the trial court's denial of his motion to sever the offenses for trial, (3) the admission of bad act evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), (4) the admission of evidence that the murder victim was a police informant, (5) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his cell phone records obtained pursuant to a judicial subpoena, (6) the trial court's denial of his motion to exclude cell tower evidence as unreliable expert proof, (7) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his cell phone, (8) the admission of text messages from the Defendant's cell phone, (9) the admission of photographs from the Defendant's cell phone, and (10) the trial court's imposition of partial consecutive sentences. We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant's theft conviction, and we, therefore, reverse and dismiss the theft conviction. We also conclude that the trial court erred in failing to sever the offenses and that the error was not harmless as to the Defendant's conviction for first degree premeditated murder. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant's conviction for first degree premeditated murder and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial. We otherwise affirm the trial court's judgments.

immunity employee police summary judgment malicious bad faith reckless conduct wanton misconduct.