A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Travis Ruzicka, of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. He appeals, contending that (1) the forensic interview did not meet the admissibility requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the forensic interview of the victim after the victim had testified, thus depriving the Defendant of the opportunity to contemporaneously cross-examine the victim as to the contents of the interview recording; and (3) the victim was incompetent to testify at trial and thus unavailable for cross-examination. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Robert Brooks, acting pro se, appeals the denial of his petition seeking relief from his convictions of reckless endangerment, aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of assault, for which he received an effective sentence of ten years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days confinement. State v. Brooks, No. W2020-01026-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 4936969, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 22, 2021), no perm. app. filed. As we understand the issues raised in the Petitioner’s pro se brief, he contends (1) trial counsel was ineffective based on certain statements made during closing argument conceding the Petitioner’s guilt; (2) trial counsel’s failure to exclude an affidavit of complaint which contained alleged perjury; and (3) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute his case because the affidavit of complaint lacked probable cause.1 Upon our review, we affirm.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. After a child is born, Tennessee creates a birth certificate that identifies the biological sex of the newborn. While the State permits individuals to change some aspects of their birth certificates (such as a new name or the identity of adoptive parents), it treats the sex listed on a birth certificate as a historical fact unchangeable by an individual’s transition to a different gender identity. At issue is whether that policy violates the United States Constitution. We affirm.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators, including Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, have introduced a bill that would protect creatives and journalists from the unauthorized use of their work by artificial intelligence (AI). The Associated Press reports that the “Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act” (COPIED Act) would require developers and providers of AI tools to allow content owners to attach to their work information documenting the origin and history of the asset. Any content with this attachment could not be used to train AI models or generate AI content. News Channel 5 has the story.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (“Marriott”) appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff Avantax Wealth Management, Inc. (“Avantax”). After terminating a contract with a hotel managed by Marriott, Avantax brought the instant declaratory judgment action against Marriott, seeking a declaration approving its termination of the contract. Marriott thereafter filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Avantax’s motion for summary judgment and denied Marriott’s motion for summary judgment because it concluded that Avantax validly terminated the contract under the contract’s force majeure clause. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.

The defendant, Jacob A. Smith, appeals his Knox County jury conviction of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to continue his trial to attain the assistance of an expert witness. Because the defendant’s motion for new trial was untimely filed and because we decline to waive the untimeliness of the defendant’s notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

The petitioner, Hector William Zarate Capriel, appeals the denial of his petition for post- conviction relief, which petition challenged his guilty-pleaded conviction of misdemeanor child abuse, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the statutory ground of termination of abandonment by failure to visit. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision.

Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy joined Memphis City Councilwoman Pearl Eva Walker at a recent first town meeting to discuss crime and public safety issues. The last question of the night, however, focused on legislative efforts to oust Mulroy from office, News 5 reports. When asked why state Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, is seeking to remove him from office, Mulroy said, “I don’t know. I mean, it’s got to be political. It’s obviously political. He’s playing to his base, getting clicks and likes and press by blaming one person for everything that’s going on. If you examine the truth, you’ll see there’s nothing to this.” Taylor has called for Mulroy to be removed from office for “dereliction of duty.”

The employee appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the employer and dismissing the case. The employee was injured in 2017 when he was struck by a forklift. The employer accepted the claim as compensable and provided certain benefits. After the employee was placed at maximum medical improvement, the employer’s insurer sent the employee a settlement offer in July 2019. The employee signed and returned the settlement offer in July 2020 but heard nothing further about a possible settlement of the claim. The insurer last issued a benefit payment on the claim in November 2020. In August 2023, the employee filed a petition for benefits, and the employer filed a motion for summary judgment in which it asserted the statute of limitations had expired. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, and the employee appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.