A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Christopher Bolden, of especially aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of a speedy trial; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance of his case from that of his co-defendant; (3) the trial court erred in “curtailing [Defendant’s] questions in jury selection”; (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s request to cross-examine the victim about “potential bias” related to cases that the State dismissed against the victim while Defendant awaited trial; (5) the trial court erred in admitting Defendant’s prior conviction for robbery “without engaging in the required analysis”; (6) the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask questions about “an irrelevant and prejudicial rap music video”; (7) the trial court erred by refusing to fully bifurcate a charged count of convicted felon in possession of a firearm from all other counts; and (8) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s judgment of conviction.

The mother in this action filed for divorce and sought to relocate to North Carolina with the parties’ son. Following settlement of all issues aside from the matters of parenting time and child support, the trial court designated the mother primary residential parent and allowed her to move back to her home state. The father appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant filed this declaratory judgment action against his sister, seeking to enforce a contract concerning property owned by the siblings’ parents at their deaths. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the contract was unenforceable, as there was no meeting of the minds due to a mutual mistake of fact. The trial court further found that a conveyance of real property was barred by the statute of frauds. Because Appellant has failed to supply this Court with a transcript or statement of the evidence presented at trial, we must affirm the trial court’s finding that there was no meeting of the minds due to a mutual mistake.

The Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday upheld 11 convictions against David Eady, which stemmed from a string of robberies that occurred in Nashville in November 2017. The court reversed a 12th conviction and called for a new trial on that charge, holding that the trial court erred in denying a motion to sever the offense. The defendant had sought to disqualify the Davidson County District Attorney’s office from prosecuting him because Glenn Funk had represented him in a different case in 1989. The trial, appellate and supreme court rejected that argument. The Supreme Court did, however, overturn the two lower courts in determining that one of the charges should have been tried separately. Read more about the ruling in State v. David Wayne Eady.

This is an appeal from two orders entered by the trial court in this post-divorce action. In the first order, the trial court found the mother guilty on three counts of criminal contempt, upon a petition filed by the father, for scheduling and taking the parties’ minor child to two doctor’s appointments and a walk-in clinic in violation of the parties’ permanent parenting plan. The parenting plan granted to the father exclusive decision-making authority over all non-emergency medical decisions for the children. In the second order, the trial court sua sponte modified the parties’ parenting plan, granting the father “tie-breaking authority” to schedule non-school-related extracurricular activities during the mother’s co-parenting time on the condition that if the mother did not agree to a particular activity, the father would pay for and provide transportation to the activities. Neither party had filed a petition seeking to modify the parenting plan. The mother appeals this modification on the grounds that no material change in circumstance existed to justify modification of the parenting plan and argues further that the modification was not in the best interest of the children because it would likely create more disputes between the parties going forward. With regard to the criminal contempt determinations, the mother argues on appeal that her actions in scheduling the two doctor’s visits were not “willful” as required for a finding of criminal contempt and that her action in taking the child to the walk-in clinic was precipitated by a medical emergency, a situation over which the parenting plan did not grant the father exclusive control. Upon thorough review, we discern no reversible error in the trial court’s determination that the mother was guilty of three counts of criminal contempt for violating the permanent parenting plan and accordingly affirm that order in its entirety. Regarding the second order, we find as a threshold matter that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the parties’ parenting plan in the absence of a petition to modify or motion for relief from judgment. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order modifying the parties’ permanent parenting plan.

Following a federal judge’s ruling yesterday denying the state’s request for a temporary restraining order against NCAA rules regarding name, image and likeness (NIL) benefits for student athletes, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti released the following statement: “In today’s opinion, a federal judge said Tennessee and Virginia are likely to prevail in their antitrust suit against the NCAA. Although the court declined to issue a temporary restraining order, the judge reasoned the NCAA can be held monetarily liable for any harms, thus negating the need for a TRO.” He continues, “Tennessee remains committed to protecting the rights of our student-athletes. We look forward to litigating this case and enforcing the law.” Tennessee and Virginia filed suit against the NCAA in January alleging the NIL rules violate federal antitrust laws.

Save the date for TBA's 28th Annual Labor & Employment Forum, set for May 3 in Nashville. The annual program brings together professionals, labor and employment attorneys and in-house counsel, and features top labor and employment professionals who will provide practical insight on emerging trends and critical issues. The program will run from 8:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. CDT. See the line up of speakers on the course registration page.

Those interested in running for an elected office with the Tennessee Bar Association or as a TBA delegate to the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates have until Feb. 15 to qualify for the 2024 ballot. Positions open this year on the TBA Board of Governors include a new vice president from the state's West Grand Division, four district governors and six grand division governors. For the ABA House of Delegates, four positions are available. To qualify for any of these roles, candidates must file a nominating petition, including the signatures of 25 TBA members in good standing, with the TBA executive director by emailing barED@tnbar.org, or by mail to 3310 West End Ave., Ste. 590, Nashville, TN 37203. The TBA’s website has more information on the election process and the list of available positions.

Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch is planning to step down from active service on the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a report from Reuters. Stranch, appointed by former president Barack Obama, plans to take senior status following confirmation of a successor. Prior to joining the court, Stranch was managing partner of Branstetter Stranch & Jennings in Nashville with a practice focused on labor and employee benefit matters. The move gives President Joe Biden another appointment to the court. The president has not yet nominated a replacement for Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, also from Tennessee, who said in August that she would take senior status once a successor was confirmed. Senior status is a form of semi-retirement for judges over the age of 65 who have completed at least 15 years of service on the federal bench.

On Feb. 1, Gov. Bill Lee nominated Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Mary L. Wagner to fill an upcoming vacancy on the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Administrative Office of the Courts reports. “Mary is a highly qualified judge who will bring significant experience to the Tennessee Supreme Court,” Gov. Lee said in making the announcement. Wagner will fill a vacancy that will occur when Justice Roger A. Page retires on Aug. 31. Wagner, 39, is a TBA member and alumna of the association's Leadership Law Program. She earned her law degree from the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law and was appointed to the circuit court in 2016 by then-Gov. Bill Haslam. She won reelection in 2018 and 2022. Her nomination now must be approved by the General Assembly. The Tennessean has more on the process.