The Defendant, Marquez L. Maxwell, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of one count of rape of a child. The trial court entered judgment ordering the Defendant to serve a thirty-year sentence at one hundred percent service, with community supervision for life following the expiration of his sentence. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to answer a jury question about its ability to reach a verdict and by simply administering a Kersey v. State, 525 S.W.2d 139, 144-45 (Tenn. 1975) instruction to the jury. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Make plans now to join colleagues from across the state at the TBA’s 2026 Annual Convention, set for June 10-13, in downtown Knoxville. Annual favorites such as the Lawyers Luncheon, compelling CLE and the swearing in of TBA’s new president will return, as will the Wednesday night welcome reception and a Thursday evening reception at Knoxville’s minor league ballpark, home of the Tennessee Smokies. This year’s convention also will include TBA’s first-ever Tech Show, tech focused CLE programs and several lunch and learn opportunities with tech vendors. The four-day event will take place at the Crowne Plaza Knoxville. Stay tuned for more information coming soon to the event website!

The Petitioner, Jacob Evan Coyne, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s (1) failure to investigate or file pretrial motions challenging the credibility of an officer who investigated his case, (2) failure to sufficiently meet with or to advise the Petitioner regarding the nature of his case, and (3) failure to adequately advise the Petitioner regarding the status of plea negotiations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In 2011, a Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Joshua Bowman, of multiple offenses stemming from the robbery and killing of the victim. He appealed his convictions, all of which were affirmed save one: his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping, which we remanded for a new trial based on a jury instruction error. State v. Bowman, No. E2012-00923-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 4680402, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 29, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014). In 2022, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis saying that there was newly discovered evidence in the form of his mental and counseling records, which supported his “intellectually diminished capacity argument.” The State did not file its response until 2025, and it asserted that the records were not newly discovered because they were his own records and, therefore, known to him. After a hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the petition finding that the petition was untimely and that the Petitioner was not entitled to tolling because he was aware of his educational limitations before trial and had discussed those limitations with his trial attorney. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this divorce matter, the trial court classified and valued the parties’ assets, subsequently fashioning a distribution of the marital assets and liabilities that the court deemed equitable. The husband has appealed. We reverse the trial court’s determination regarding the classification and valuation of two assets and remand those issues to the trial court for further determination. Accordingly, because of these unresolved classification and valuation issues, we vacate the trial court’s overall distribution of marital property and remand that issue for further determination as well.

This case arises out of the demise of a 20-year marriage. The trial court declared the parties divorced, equitably divided the marital estate, and awarded the wife alimony in solido, transitional alimony, and alimony in futuro. The husband appeals. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects.

The employer questions the trial court’s award of medical and temporary disability benefits in this interlocutory appeal. The employee suffered a fracture to his left femur when a structure fell on him at work. While undergoing treatment for that injury, his medical providers determined the employee had a cancerous lesion at the fracture site and diagnosed him with plasma cell neoplasm. The employer initially denied the compensability of the injury, arguing that the primary cause of the fracture was the employee’s preexisting cancer weakening his femur and not the incident at work. Following an expedited hearing, the court awarded medical benefits for the femur fracture, including chemotherapy and radiation recommended by the employee’s orthopedic oncologist, as well as temporary disability benefits. The trial court also denied the employee’s counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees at that stage of the case. Both parties have appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s award of temporary disability benefits, its award of medical benefits, as modified, for treatment reasonably necessitated by the employee’s injury, and its denial of attorneys’ fees at this stage in the litigation. We reverse the portion of the order requiring the employer to provide a panel of oncologists for oncological treatment and remand the case.

In honor of National Consumer Protection Week, the Tennessee Attorney General’s (AG) Office Division of Consumer Affairs (DCA) on Monday announced the top 10 complaint categories for 2025. In addition, DCA announced that it helped Tennessee consumers recover more than $3.6 million in cash, merchandise and services in 2025 through its voluntary mediation program. Last year, DCA received 9,938 formal consumer complaints and worked to route each to the appropriate agency or mediate disputes directly between consumers and businesses. The division’s informal mediation process provides a free, good-faith pathway to resolve disagreements involving purchases of products or services for personal or household use. “Our goal is simple — help Tennesseans resolve disputes and protect their hard-earned money,” said AG Jonathan Skrmetti. “In 2025, that work translated into real results for thousands of families across the state.” Read more in a press release.

Three candidates for Knox County General Session Court, Division 6, judge recently were profiled by Knox TN Today. The candidates — Andrea Kline and Rhonda Lee on the Republican ballot and Ben Houston II as the sole Democratic candidate — share their views on why they want to serve on the bench, what their top three priorities are for the court, how they will make good use of taxpayer money and more. The primary will be held May 5. The winners will face off in the general election on Aug. 6.

Shelby County attorney Handel R. Durham Jr. received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court on March 3. The court found that Durham mistakenly believed that an existing client had retained both him and another attorney for a separate matter and that the representation would be under the same arrangement as the existing representation. There was no written fee agreement executed for the new matter. The attorneys then improperly attempted to collect a contingency fee of approximately 33.3% from the client. These actions were found to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(c), 7.1 and 8.4(a).