A Coffee County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Gavin Allen Clark, with first-degree felony murder by aggravated child abuse (count one), first-degree felony murder by child neglect (count two), aggravated child abuse (count three), and aggravated child neglect (count four). Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide in counts one and two, and he was convicted as charged in counts three and four of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect. He received an effective sentence of twenty-three years in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following issues for review: (1) as an issue of first impression in Tennessee, whether the verdict is defective for ambiguity because within each count the jury simultaneously convicted and acquitted; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to act or serve as the thirteenth juror; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction of aggravated child neglect; (4) whether the trial court erred in deciding the McDaniel motions when the trial judge employed an erroneous legal standard and conducted an arbitrary hearing; (5) whether the trial court erred in permitting witnesses to testify about the Defendant’s callous demeanor; (6) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress data from the Defendant’s cell phone; (7) whether the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; (8) whether the State violated the Defendant’s speedy trial rights; and (9) whether the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal. 1 Upon review, we conclude that the verdicts returned by the jury in this case were ambiguous because they purport to simultaneously convict and acquit the Defendant. As such, the verdicts are unenforceable and cannot be given full effect. Under the circumstances of this case, we also conclude that the Defendant’s convictions are not barred from retrial based on double jeopardy principles, and we remand for a new trial. We further conclude that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty as the thirteenth juror, which also mandates reversal of the Defendant’s convictions, and remand for a new trial. We address the Defendant’s remaining issues in the event of further appellate review.

Defendant, Joseph Kade Abbott, pled guilty in two consolidated cases to three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure in exchange for concurrent six-year sentences, with the trial court to determine the manner of service. The trial court sentenced Defendant to six years’ incarceration to be served at 100%. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A member of a Tennessee limited liability company filed a complaint seeking the appointment of a receiver to operate the company and the dissolution and winding up of the company. The trial court appointed a receiver, the receiver moved to sell the company’s assets, and the member objected to the sale. The member also sought to amend his complaint to add additional claims against additional defendants. The trial court entered an order approving the receiver’s proposed sale of the assets and denying the member’s motion to amend his complaint. The trial court ordered that the proceeds of the sale are to be paid into the trial court’s registry and certified its order as a final judgment. We conclude that the trial court’s order was not a final judgment and that the trial court improvidently certified it as such. Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and we dismiss this appeal.

Property owners brought an action seeking an injunction to prohibit an adjoining property owner from blocking access to their properties. The trial court granted the request for an injunction after concluding that the land at issue was a public road that had not been abandoned. The adjoining property owner appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm.

TBA member benefit partner Clio has released its 2025 Legal Trends Report. Building on a decade of research, Clio has developed the industry’s most comprehensive dataset on legal practice and emerging trends, providing key insights into how law firms can succeed and grow in an evolving profession. This year’s report also features a first-of-its-kind cognitive study that looks at how technology affects the way lawyers think and work. The report also found that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) drives firm growth while technology adoption continues to predict long-term success. Learn more in a press release from the company or read the full report. Learn more about AI tools for lawyers and the benefits available to TBA members.

Amazon.com has agreed to settle a nationwide consumer lawsuit accusing the ecommerce giant of unfair and deceptive practices for failing to issue refunds or for recharging customers who returned purchases on time. Reuters reports that no details of the settlement have been released yet. The lawsuit, filed in 2023, focused on the company’s “advance refund” policy, by which a customer could receive a refund before the returned product was processed. The plaintiffs said Amazon caused “substantial unjustified monetary losses” for consumers who in some instances properly returned an item but still got charged for it. Amazon denies any wrongdoing, asserting that customers accepted the terms of the return policies, including the possibility they would be recharged for failing to send the product back within the specified window.

The Trump administration has agreed to a student loan forgiveness deal that will allow millions of borrowers to see relief, The Hill reports. The administration reached a deal with the American Federation of Teachers last week that resumes student debt relief, mostly for those who have been paying on their loans for the past 20 to 25 years. Under the deal, the U.S. Education Department will continue to process relief for borrowers in the Income-Contingent Repayment plan and Pay as You Earn plan, until those programs are eliminated in 2028. The deal also reportedly will benefit those on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

A federal court has struck down the Biden administration's attempt to impose gender-identity requirements on health care providers and state Medicaid programs through regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act. According to Tennessee Attorney General (AG) Jonathan Skrmetti, the rules would have forced doctors to perform gender-transition procedures and Tennessee taxpayers to fund them. The court’s judgment, according to Skrmetti, not only eliminates the provisions, but makes it more difficult for future administrations to revive them. The ruling came from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Tennessee and Mississippi were part of a coalition of 15 states to bring suit against the rules. Read more in a press release from the AG’s office.

While the federal judiciary has run out of funding, operations at Nashville’s federal court are not being immediately impacted, The Tennessean reports. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee will continue as scheduled and will accept new cases, though certain proceedings, like immigration ceremonies, will be limited. By contrast, the staffers, clerks and government lawyers, including federal public defenders and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, will not be getting paid for the foreseeable future. The last paycheck for public defenders and court staff came Oct. 17, according to Dumaka Shabazz, federal public defender for the Middle District of Tennessee. Shabazz said that working without pay will have a “devastating” impact on his office’s morale.

Amid an argument over jettisoning Memphis school board members, state Rep. Torrey Harris, D-Memphis, is sponsoring a measure that would allow voters to recall local elected leaders, based largely on discontent with an official. Harris filed HB1448 this week to create a process for the removal of officials such as mayors, county commissioners, school board members and other county officials based on voter discontent with an official. The bill has had mixed reaction. State Sen. London Lamar, D-Memphis, said she would not support the bill, saying, “We already have a system for holding elected officials accountable. It’s called an election.” Tennessee Lookout has more on the proposal.