William M. Barker

The case involved Michael Dwayne Edwards' 2006 petition for habeas corpus relief challenging his 1998 burglary conviction sentence, in which the trial court classified him as a persistent offender based on five prior felony convictions and imposed a nine-year Range III sentence. Edwards argued that one conviction for felony evading arrest occurred after the burglary offense and thus did not qualify as a prior conviction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-107, rendering his sentence illegal and the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that even assuming an error in the persistent offender classification, the mistake was non-jurisdictional and at most rendered the judgment voidable rather than void, which does not entitle a petitioner to habeas corpus relief. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' remand for a hearing and reinstated the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

This wrongful death case arose after eighteen-year-old Ryan Cody Downs, who had been drinking with several friends including the defendants, became ill during a ride in a pickup truck, exited the vehicle on an interstate highway for unknown reasons, and was struck and killed by other cars. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendants placed the decedent in the truck bed, whether he was helpless, and whether the defendants took charge of him, which could give rise to a duty of care. The court further held that none of the defendants stood in a special relationship with the decedent that would create an affirmative duty to aid or protect him. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the remaining negligence elements and defenses.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of second-degree murder who challenged the admissibility of his videotaped confession, which followed an initial incriminating admission made during an unwarned custodial interrogation by police. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to determine whether Missouri v. Seibert or the state precedent in State v. Smith barred use of the later Mirandized statement. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding that Seibert does not prohibit admission of the confession because the defendant received proper warnings and voluntarily waived his rights before the videotaped interview. It further held that the state constitutional right against self-incrimination under article I, section 9 was not violated, as the overall circumstances supported a free and informed choice to confess. The conviction was upheld, though the case was remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

In this criminal case, the defendants were charged with drug offenses after a traffic stop of their slow-moving vehicle (around 20 mph in a 35 mph zone), which led to the discovery of evidence; they moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the stop was unlawful under Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-154(a), the impeding traffic statute. The trial court granted the motions, interpreting the statute to require that other vehicles come to a complete stop before a slow driver could be found to impede traffic, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of the statute does not require vehicles to stop for traffic to be impeded and that the trial court had applied an erroneous legal standard. The court remanded for a new suppression hearing to address the facts and the state's alternative arguments, such as whether the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of a medical emergency.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to theft after embezzling over $630,000 from her employer and was sentenced to confinement followed by probation with a condition requiring monthly restitution payments of about $1,545. After release, she moved to reduce the payments to $500 per month, but the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the denial via a common-law writ of certiorari and found a plain and palpable abuse of discretion. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendant had no appeal as of right under the rules of appellate procedure from the denial of a motion to modify probation conditions and that certiorari was unavailable because the trial court had not acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily. The Court reinstated the trial court's order denying the modification.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by Amanda Dewald and her husband against StoneCrest Medical Center and an independent contractor radiologist, alleging negligence in misreading ultrasound results and issuing an erroneous cancer diagnosis. The trial court denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment due to factual disputes over whether the hospital could be held vicariously liable under an apparent agency theory. The Court of Appeals reversed and granted summary judgment to the hospital, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case. The court applied the standard from its companion decision in Boren v. Weeks, derived from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 429, which requires plaintiffs to show that the hospital held itself out as providing the services, the patient looked to the hospital rather than the individual physician, and the patient reasonably believed the services were provided by the hospital or its employees; meaningful written notice at admission can generally defeat liability, but factual disputes precluded summary judgment here.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure