WPC = [QVBPJէ͢GW Ɠ%fs?| e4LP->X?4KACwA,D7$kˋ|]yⶍP( "V~ڒ>)W21HWW <^HR;E+DRI>4X2>' O>h)6aEl|G[2G]FXí&M >Ѫ-XJF{wiHԴ%Ŗ609#f|D}f T?[{u뇀I'c1y>F}se>׽ \M3d׺S; 7x&W9/]n)y=6@p54dć-sIUR$%־u 0+W+.#E?TIݦ;5E7؏s eɛ :a$>r0'f%L(cWnLBz`n,b#\ % U @# 0c U N ^ 9 wE zI  4   m   ] #NEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K   AST 0m 0D AUHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0(I Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular)  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt9?(+003|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  \ d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  83XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#+#Ԉ &   May2000Session L X8X #XX8 #KENNETHL.STOREYv.RANDALL_NICHOLS_,etal.X8X  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.1354622DavidH._Cate_,Chancellor  6 FILEDAUGUST14,_2000_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199800851_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     AnaccusedawaitingtrialonachargeofaggravatedrapefiledanactionintheChanceryCourtof x  KnoxCountyagainstthedistrictattorneygeneralandtwoofhisassistants.Thecomplaintsought d aninjunctionpreventingthedefendantsfromproceedingwithhisprosecution,amoneyjudgment P tocompensatehimforhismentalandphysicalsuffering,andthelossofovertwoyearsofvaluable < time.Thecomplaintalsosoughttodisbarthedefendants.TheChanceryCourtgrantedsummary (x judgmenttothedefendants.Weaffirm. d  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt < AffirmedandRemanded  (   #X8#X8X.BenH._Cantrell_,_P.J._,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr.  andWilliamB.Cain,JJ.,joined.  KennethL.Storey,_Henning_,Tennessee,ProSe. t PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;and L  Meredith_DeVault_,SeniorCounsel,fortheappellees,RandallE._Nichols_,GregHarrisonandCharles 8!  E._Cerney_. $"t! N OPINION #XX8}#X8X $8 $ #XX8 #  X8X@) I.  &"&   Thecomplaintinthisactionallegesthatthedistrictattorneyandhistwoassistantscaused (#( anexcessivedelayintheplaintiffsprosecution,negligentlymisrepresentedfactstothecriminal )$) courtsanddefamedhim,obstructedjusticebymakingmisrepresentationstothecourts,suborned p*%* perjury,andsuppressedevidencerelevanttohisdefense.Thecomplaintsoughtamoneyjudgment, \+&+ aninjunctionagainstproceedinginthecriminaltrial,andthatthedefendantsbedisbarredpursuant H,', toTenn.CodeAnn.233201,etseq. 4-(-6 _ԇ  WhilethecomplaintwaspendingMr.Storeywasconvictedofaggravatedrapeandreceived  asentenceoftwentyfiveyearsinstatecustody.    Thedefendantsfiledamotiontodismissand/orforsummaryjudgmentonthefollowing t grounds:thatthecourtlackedjurisdictionovercriminalmatters;thatthecomplaintfailedtoallege ` abasisfordisciplinaryproceedingsunderTenn.CodeAnn.233201;thattheyhadimmunityfrom L  amoneyjudgment;thattherequestedinjunctivereliefwasmoot;andthatthedefendantswere 8  absolutelyimmuneunderTenn.CodeAnn.98307.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgment $ t tothedefendants.  `   Mr.StoreyappealedtotheSupremeCourtbutthatCourttransferredthecausetothiscourt  8  withawrittenopinionfiledMay1,2000.SeeStoreyv.Nichols,____S.W.3d____(Tenn.2000). $  Theopinionestablishedthattherearetwowaystoinitiateadisciplinaryproceedingagainstan   attorney:(1)underRule9oftheSupremeCourtsrules,and(2)underTenn.CodeAnn.233201,   etseq.IneithereventanappealliestotheCourtofAppealsratherthantheSupremeCourt.The   SupremeCourtsopiniondisposedofoneoftheissuesraisedbytheappelleesthatthestatutory   disciplinaryproceedinghadbeenpreemptedbyRule9. p @) II.  H @# TheInjunction  4   Weagreewiththedefendantsthatthecomplaintforaninjunctionwasproperlydismissed.  \ First,wethinkitwasmootsincethecriminalcasehadbeentried.Badgettv.Broome,409S.W.2d H 354(Tenn.1966).TheonlyinjunctionsoughtbyMr.Storeyforhimselfwasanorderpreventing 4 thedefendantsfromproceedingwithhisprosecution.Sincethefunctionofaninjunctionistoafford   preventiverelief,itcannolongeraidMr.Storeyinhisactionagainstthesedefendants.SeeKelton   v.Vandervort,707S.W.2d517(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).    Secondly,asarulewithveryfewexceptions,anequitycourthasnojurisdictiontoenjoina  pendingorthreatenedcriminalprosecution.Earhartv.Young,124S.W.2d693(Tenn.1939); l Campbellv.Sundquist,926S.W.2d250(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Statev.Osborne,712S.W.2d488 X  (Tenn.Crim.App.1986).WearenotawareofanyexceptionthatwouldapplytoMr.Storey. D! @^^( III. #l! @#MonetaryRelief  $X"   InasupplementalbriefinthisCourtMr.Storeyhasdisclaimedanyattempttoobtainamoney %0!$ judgmentagainsttheappellees.Inouropinionitisjustaswellbecauseoftheimmunitygranted &"% prosecutorsactingwithinthescopeoftheirprosecutorialduties.Imblerv.Pachtman,424U.S.409 '#& (1976).TheplaintiffinImblerchargedtheprosecutorswithpresentingfalseevidenceand (#' concealingexculpatoryevidence!thesamechargeMr.Storeymakeshere.Butthecourtheldthat )$( thedefendantwasactingwithinthescopeofaprosecutorsdutiesforwhichhehadanabsolute |*%) immunity. h+&* Ї@dd) IV.  @%Disbarment     Unfortunatelyforthedefendants,theimmunityfromcivilliabilitydoesnotshieldthemfrom t disciplinaryactioniftheyviolatethedisciplinaryrulesincarryingouttheirprosecutorialduties. ` Imbler,424U.S.at429;InReRook,556P.2d1351(Or.1976);Schoolfieldv.TennesseeBar L  Association,353S.W.2d401(Tenn.1961)(judicialimmunitydidnotpreventdisbarment 8  proceedings).Theirmotiontodismissdid,however,includethegroundthatthecomplaintfiledby $ t Mr.StoreywasnotfiledunderoathasrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.233202(a).Themotionto  ` dismisswasfiledonNovember12,1997,andMr.Storeydidnotattempttoamendhiscomplaint  L  beforethechancellorgrantedthemotiontodismissonJune24,1998.Onthatsamedate,Mr.Storey  8  filedapleadingunderoaththat,itcouldbeargued,attemptedtoverifythecomplaint.Hedidnot $  fileamotiontoalteroramendthejudgmentbasedonhislateattempttocomplywiththestatute.     Astatuterequiringanoathtoaninstrumentismandatory,andfaithfulcompliancewiththe   statuteisabsolutelynecessarytothevalidityoftheinstrument.LookoutBankv.Noe,86Tenn.21   (1887).Anoathisnotameretechnicality.Whereitisrequired,anoathcannotbewaivedbythe p court.PulaskiLumberCo.v.HarpethSouth,Inc.,501S.W.2d275(Tenn.1973).Wethinkthatis \ especiallytrueinastatutorydisbarmentproceeding,whereanyindividualmaybringtheaction,and H thecourtmaylaunchaninvestigationonthecomplaintalone.Tenn.CodeAnn.233202(b)(c). 4 Whenproceedingsmayresultinsuchdrasticconsequences,itisnotanundueburdentorequirethat  p theprocessbecommencedwithasolemnoath.Wethinkthechancellorwascorrectindismissing  \ thecomplaintfordisbarment. H   Theappellanthasmovedthiscourtforadefaultjudgmentagainsttheappellees,andforthe   courttotakejudicialnoticeofadjudicativefacts.Thosemotionsareherebyoverruled.     Thejudgmentofthecourtbelowisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedforanyfurther  proceedingsnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant,KennethL.Storey.     `     h   _________________________________________ #l!    `     h   BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.