Eugene Smith, Defendant, entered best interest pleas to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery with sentencing left open to the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of twelve years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence of six years on each count, imposing consecutive sentences, and denying alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

TBA’s Legislative Updates weekly podcast is now available. Join TBA attorneys and lobbyists Brad Lampley and Ashley Harbin with Adams and Reese as they provide an update on indigent representation funding; the TBA's adoption birth certificate bill, HB2645/SB2632, and adoption clean-up bill, HB2644/SB2633; what to expect next week; and the upcoming adjournment. Legislative Updates airs each week the legislature is in session on the TBA’s Facebook page. It is also released as a podcast on the same day and can be found on the TBA’s website or wherever you listen to podcasts.

More than a third of U.S. law school deans say they oppose an American Bar Association (ABA) proposal that would require greater uniformity across courses, Reuters reports. The group, which included Vanderbilt University Law School Dean Chris Guthrie, argues that the ABA is unnecessarily tightening its grip on law schools and constraining legal educators' freedom in the classroom. “It is unclear why the ABA needs to micromanage law school curricula to such a degree,” the deans wrote in a public comment. Supporters of the proposal argue that more conformity among required classes and the adoption of learning goals for each course would benefit students. Guthrie also signed a separate comment with three other deans.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Like many municipalities, the Village of St. Bernard (“Village”) regulates billboards and other signs displayed within the Village limits. Norton Outdoor Advertising (“Norton”) has operated billboards within the Village for decades. The Village recently revoked one of Norton’s permits, however, after Norton constructed two variable-message signs. The relevant Village ordinance regulates signs based principally on whether what is being advertised is located on or off the premises of the sign. Under controlling Supreme Court precedent, this is a permissible, content-neutral means of regulation. But the Village’s ordinance also has an exemption that functions beyond this on- and off-premises dichotomy. And that exemption is content based. Accordingly, the Village ordinance must satisfy strict scrutiny. Because the Village ordinance is not narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling interest, it cannot stand as written. The parties and the district court, however, have yet to consider whether the unconstitutional provision is severable. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Michael Taylor, for first degree premeditated murder, unlawful possession of a weapon, and violation of an order of protection. The Defendant, at his jury trial, was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder as well as the charged offenses of unlawful possession of a weapon and violation of an order of protection. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective twenty-five year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court provided an incomplete and misleading jury instruction on self-defense that prevented him from receiving a fair trial. Because the self-defense instruction was error and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the particular facts of this case, we reverse the Defendant’s convictions and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial on all counts.

In this post-divorce custody and contempt action, the trial court held the defendant father in criminal contempt for violating the parties’ permanent parenting plan. The trial court sentenced the father to serve 186 consecutive days in jail. The trial court also limited the father’s parenting time with the parties’ minor children and awarded the mother her attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the action. The father timely appealed to this Court, arguing that he lacked adequate notice of the criminal contempt allegations and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. The father also argues that the trial court erred in limiting his parenting time under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-406. The issues related to inadequate notice are waived because the father raises those issues for the first time on appeal. Father’s argument regarding his parenting time is waived for the same reason. We also conclude that the trial court’s sentence for the father’s criminal contempt is appropriate under the circumstances and does not amount to an abuse of discretion. Finally, we award the mother her costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in defending this appeal.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

American Bar Association (ABA) President Mary Smith recently spoke out about threats against judges. In a statement, she notes that serious threats against judges have doubled since 2019, with 457 serious threats targeting federal judges across the country in 2023. Often, these involve threats of physical harm or death, not only to the judges, but also to their families and staff, she says. She calls on lawyers across the country to defend judges and courts that are unjustly criticized as well as teach fellow Americans how to take appropriate actions should they disagree with court opinions. “As lawyers, we have a unique duty to lead our nation in the protection of our judges, the rule of law and American democracy. The time has come to rededicate ourselves to our obligations,” she concludes.

In this appeal, the employee seeks to have two court-approved settlements set aside, contending, among other allegations, that medical documentation and other information had been concealed from her at the time of her settlement hearings, that her impairment ratings were too low, and that both the employer’s insurer and her own attorneys had breached a “fiduciary duty” to her. The trial court concluded the employee failed to prove grounds for relief by clear and convincing evidence with respect to either settlement. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and certify it as final.