A Henry County jury found Defendant, Justin Daniel Barker, guilty of two counts of rape (under alternate theories) and one count of aggravated statutory rape. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight and a half years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting testimony related to Defendant’s pending criminal proceedings in another jurisdiction, and he contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdicts. After review, we conclude the trial court erred in admitting evidence related to the pending criminal proceedings, but such error was harmless. We also conclude the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the issuance of an order of protection against the appellant, Rodney Williams, Jr. We, however, have determined that the appellant’s brief is profoundly deficient for it fails to comply with Rule 27(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee in several material respects. Based on the appellant’s failure to substantially comply with Rule 27(a)(6)–(7) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, the appellant has waived his right to an appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

The appellees sold a portion of their property to the appellants. The appellees sued the appellants seeking an easement by necessity. The appellants maintained that Tenn. Code Ann § 54-14-102 and its associated statutes prohibited such an easement. The trial court granted a common law easement by necessity. We agree with the trial court’s determination that the 2020 amendments to Tenn. Code Ann § 54-14-102 and its associated statutes did not change the common law regarding easements by necessity. However, due to the lack of a hearing and the corresponding lack of evidence, the improper use of the trial judge’s visit to the property as a fact-finding mission, and the uncertain procedures used to decide the case, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Appellants, Rose Sawmill, Inc. and Shiloh Golf Course, Inc., have appealed an order of the Hardin County Chancery Court that was entered on September 14, 2023. We determine that the September 14, 2023 order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Appellant/Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and on its finding that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. Because Appellee abandoned the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights on that ground. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights on all remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Appellant’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

For the week of February 12, 2024 - February 16, 2024

Question: Is a ticketing system to access the House of Representatives chamber gallery permissible under article II, section 22 of the Tennessee Constitution?

Opinion: Article II, section 22 of the Tennessee Constitution does not prohibit the House of Representatives from using a ticketing system to manage public access to the chamber galleries.

The trial court denied a petition for termination of parental rights as to Mother, despite finding two grounds for termination, based on petitioner’s failure to establish that termination was in the best interest of the child. Petitioner appeals the trial court’s determination that a third ground for termination was not found, as well as the finding that termination was not in the best interest of the child. Based on the record before us, we (1) affirm the denial of failure to visit; (2) affirm the finding of failure to support; (3) reverse the finding of persistence of conditions; and (4) affirm the finding that terminating Mother’s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, William Flynn, of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and aggravated assault in concert. For these convictions, the trial court imposed an effective life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions. After review, we affirm the judgments.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Keenan A. Murphy, of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-six years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the proof is insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to prove premeditation. The Defendant also asserts that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the State to cross-examine the defense expert about a second shooting the Defendant committed nine days after the offenses in this case. On our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.