Opinion FlashMarch 13, 2002
Volume 8 Number 046
What follows is the case style or name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion released eletronically today to TBALink.
There are three ways for TBALink members to get the full-text versions of these opinions from the Web:
Howard H. Vogel
STATE OF TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES v. C.S.M. and L.M.M. IN RE: C.M.M. Court:TCA Attorneys: Gail F. Wortley, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellants C.S.M. and L.M.M. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, and Elizabeth C. Driver, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services. Judge: SWINEY First Paragraph: In this appeal, C.S.M ("Mother") and L.M.M. ("Father") challenge the termination of their parental rights, claiming there was insufficient proof to establish grounds for termination or that it was in the best interest of their child to terminate the parent-child relationship. We affirm the decision of the Juvenile Court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/csm.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NELSON TROGLIN Court:TCCA Attorneys: Howard L. Upchurch, Pikeville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Nelson Troglin. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Kathy D. Aslinger, Assistant Attorney General; J. Michael Taylor, District Attorney General; and James W. Pope, III, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WOODALL First Paragraph: The defendant, Nelson Troglin, was convicted of second degree murder following a jury trial in the Bledsoe County Circuit Court. The trial court subsequently imposed a sentence of twenty-three years. In this appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by ruling that Defendant's statement to the police was admissible as evidence during his trial; (3) whether comments made by the trial court during curative instructions to the jury constituted impermissible expressions of bias toward Defendant, effectively depriving him of his right to a fair trial; (4) whether the trial court erred when it excluded evidence that a person, not Defendant, had assaulted the victim on the day of his death, and when it allowed an expert to testify concerning evidence which was not revealed to Defendant during regular discovery; (5) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser- included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide; and (6) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/troglinn.wpd
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL!
GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!
SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!
For the HTML Text Version:
UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT!
To STOP receiving TBALink Opinion-Flash:
© Copyright 2002 Tennessee Bar Association