STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHAWN RAFAEL BOUGH
Mark E. Stephens and John Halstead, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the
appellant, Shawn Rafael Bough.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michael E. Moore,
Solicitor General; and John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General,
for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The defendant, Shawn Rafael Bough, was convicted of felony murder and
especially aggravated robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals held
that the motion for new trial, which was not filed until the date of
the sentencing hearing on the especially aggravated robbery
conviction, fifty-two days after judgment was entered on the felony
murder conviction, was untimely as to the felony murder conviction.
The Court of Criminal Appeals also held that two amended motions for
new trial, which were filed after the hearing on the original motion
for new trial, but before an order was entered, were untimely. On
these two issues, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals, finding
that the original motion for new trial, as well as the two amended
motions for new trial, were timely filed as to both convictions. The
Court of Criminal Appeals found that the evidence was sufficient to
support both convictions. The remaining issues addressed by the Court
only related to the especially aggravated robbery conviction because
the Court had held that the motion for new trial was untimely. On
those issues, the Court held that (1) while the State's reference to a
"missing witness" during closing argument was improper, the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the witnesses Deanna Jones,
Edie Jones and Dante Smith were not accomplices whose testimony needed
corroboration, and therefore the trial court did not err in failing to
give a jury instruction on accomplice testimony; and (3) the defendant
waived any objection to the testimony of Isaiah Dixon regarding the
defendant's out-of-court confession by his failure to raise the issue
at trial. We affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals on these issues.
However, because the Court of Criminal Appeals did not address these
last three issues with respect to the felony murder conviction or any
of the issues raised in the amended motions for new trial as to either
conviction, we remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for
consideration of those issues.
BETTY L. HAMPTON v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
James Lee Milligan, Jr. and Michael S. Shipwash, Knoxville, Tennessee,
for the Appellant, Betty L. Hampton.
Charles G. Taylor, III, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellee,
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
This is a premises liability case wherein the plaintiff alleges that
she was injured when she slipped and fell on spilled baby food while
shopping at the defendant's store. After trial of the case before a
jury, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed
verdict and dismissed the case upon grounds that the plaintiff failed
to present proof that the defendant had notice of an unreasonably
dangerous condition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and
JACQUELINE HURT v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Jacqueline Hurt, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Helena Walton
Yarbrough, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District
Attorney General; and Julie Mosley, Assistant District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The petitioner, Jacqueline Hurt, appeals the denial of her petition
for post-conviction relief in which she asserted that her plea was not
knowing and voluntary and that she was denied effective assistance of
counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition;
however, we remand the matter for the limited purpose of entry of a
ROGER NEAL JAMES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Danny H. Goodman, Jr., Tiptonville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Roger Neal James.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michael Markham,
Assistant Attorney General; and Kevin McAlpin, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The petitioner, Roger Neal James, appeals the denial of
post-conviction relief. The issues are whether the petitioner was
denied the effective assistance of counsel and whether the jury was
racially biased. The judgment is affirmed.