CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. M2023-01033-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2024

State of Tennessee v. Lloyd Allard

Defendant Lloyd Allard was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and twenty-eight counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, receiving an effective sentence of 144 years. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, raising challenges regarding the suppression of his custodial statement, the chain of custody for evidence, the excessiveness of his sentence, and the rejection of his insanity defense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgments, finding no error in the admission of his statements or the establishment of the chain of custody. It further concluded that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish an insanity defense and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing.

Aggravated Rape of ChildAggravated Sexual BatterySexual Exploitation of MinorCustodial Statement SuppressionRight to Counsel InvocationMiranda WaiverChain of Custody ChallengeInsanity Defense RejectionDissociative Personality DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
References
47
Case No. No. I-1102-427, No. M2005-00166-CCA-R3-CD and No. M2005-02370-CCA-R10-CO
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2007

State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Schiefelbein

Mark A. Schiefelbein was convicted of seven counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. He appealed his convictions and sentence, raising multiple issues including discovery restrictions, public trial rights, jury instructions, judicial bias, exclusion of medical testimony, severance of charges, and sentencing legality. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the convictions but modified his effective sentence from 96 years to 36 years. The court further dismissed three child rape offenses, holding that further prosecution was barred by compulsory joinder rules and double jeopardy principles. The trial judge was also disqualified from conducting further proceedings in the case due to concerns about impartiality.

Aggravated Sexual BatterySexual Exploitation of MinorChild RapeAppellate ProcedureCriminal ProcedureDouble JeopardySentencing Reform ActJudicial BiasDiscovery ViolationsPublic Trial Rights
References
117
Case No. M2005-00166-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2007

State v. Schiefelbein

The defendant, Mark A. Schiefelbein, was convicted by a Williamson County jury of seven counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Initially sentenced to 96 years, he appealed numerous trial errors and constitutional violations. The appellate court affirmed convictions but initially modified his sentence to 36 years, dismissed three severed child rape charges on double jeopardy grounds, and disqualified the trial judge for further proceedings due to perceived bias. Upon rehearing, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the court further modified the defendant's effective sentence to 32 years, finding the trial court's use of statutory enhancement factors unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment.

Aggravated Sexual BatterySexual Exploitation of MinorSentencing Reform ActDouble JeopardyJudicial BiasDiscovery ViolationsJury InstructionsSixth AmendmentAppellate ReviewChild Abuse
References
78
Case No. C.C.A. No. 01C01-9610-CC-00425
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1997

State v. Ray Vance

The defendant, Ray Vance, appealed his conviction of aggravated sexual battery in Stewart County Circuit Court. He was serving a ten-year sentence for the conviction. Vance raised three issues on appeal: whether the court erred in disallowing corroborative testimony about the victim's sexual maturity, whether the court erred in instructing the jury on release eligibility dates, and whether the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error regarding the evidence exclusion, jury instructions, or sufficiency of the evidence. The court noted that the defendant failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of Rule 412 regarding sexual behavior evidence and found the jury instruction on sentencing to be harmless.

Aggravated Sexual BatteryChild Sexual AbuseHymenal TearsRule 412 EvidenceRelease EligibilitySufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsCompromise VerdictAppellate ReviewCriminal Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Painter

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of rape, sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child, and a cross-appeal by the People regarding an order setting aside a conviction for aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion to set aside the aggravated sexual abuse conviction, citing insufficient evidence. However, the appellate court disagreed, affirming the original judgment of conviction and reversing the order that had set aside the aggravated sexual abuse verdict, thereby reinstating that conviction. The court found that the evidence, including medical testimony and the defendant's confession, was legally sufficient to establish guilt. While an error in admitting certain testimony was noted, it was deemed harmless due to the overwhelming proof against the defendant.

RapeSexual AbuseChild EndangermentAggravated Sexual AbuseJury VerdictLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceHarmless ErrorImproper Bolstering TestimonyDefendant's ConfessionAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Pierce

The defendant was convicted of multiple sexual offenses, including sodomy and aggravated sexual abuse, against two minor victims in Broome County. The conviction was based on incidents occurring on June 28, 1997. Defendant appealed the County Court's decision allowing one victim to testify via two-way closed-circuit television due to being a vulnerable witness, a decision affirmed by the appellate court due to factors like the heinous nature of the crime and defendant's position of authority. Defendant's appeals regarding the sufficiency of evidence for physical injury in the aggravated sexual abuse charge and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were also rejected. However, the appellate court modified the sentence, directing that the sentences for aggravated sexual abuse in the first and third degrees run concurrently rather than consecutively, as they arose from the same conduct.

Sodomy First DegreeSodomy Second DegreeAggravated Sexual Abuse First DegreeAggravated Sexual Abuse Third DegreeSexual Abuse Second DegreeVulnerable WitnessClosed-Circuit Television TestimonyProsecutorial MisconductPhysical InjuryConcurrent Sentences
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Campbell

Lloyd Campbell, Jr. appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual battery of a victim under thirteen, which occurred in October 1991. He raised several issues, including the denial of motions for acquittal, a bill of particulars, and the refusal to compel a psychological examination of the victim. Campbell also challenged the admission of 'fresh complaint' evidence and the exclusion of his own polygraph results and psychological testimony regarding his propensity to commit sexual abuse. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions or admitting/excluding evidence. The court emphasized the inadmissibility of polygraph results and the trial court's discretion in determining the helpfulness of expert psychological testimony to the jury.

Aggravated Sexual BatteryChild Sexual AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceBill of ParticularsWitness CompetencyPsychological ExaminationFresh Complaint EvidenceUncharged OffensesPolygraph ExaminationExpert Testimony
References
25
Case No. M2015-00762-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2016

Ms. Bowen Ex Rel. John Doe, N v. William E. Arnold, Jr.

This appeal addresses whether a criminal conviction for rape and aggravated sexual battery can collaterally estop a defendant from relitigating these issues in a subsequent civil lawsuit filed by the victim. The trial court applied collateral estoppel, which was challenged by the defendant on grounds of lacking party mutuality and differing issues between criminal and civil proceedings. The Supreme Court of Tennessee abolished the strict party mutuality requirement for both offensive and defensive collateral estoppel, adopting sections 29 and 85 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments as guiding principles. Applying these new guidelines, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment against the defendant. This decision prevents the defendant from relitigating the issues of whether he raped and sexually battered the minor plaintiff in the ongoing civil action.

Collateral EstoppelNonmutual Collateral EstoppelOffensive Collateral EstoppelDefensive Collateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionCivil LawsuitRapeAggravated Sexual BatteryRes JudicataJudicial Economy
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paz v. Weir

Olga Lydia Paz, an inmate in Harris County Jail, alleged sexual contact with Chaplain Fred E. Weir during her incarceration in 1997 and 1998. She claimed Weir exploited her emotional vulnerability and position as a public servant to coerce her into sexual acts. Paz also alleged retaliation for reporting these incidents, including being placed in administrative separation. Harris County sought summary judgment on Paz’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and a state law claim for sexual battery. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the § 1983 claims (bodily integrity and free speech retaliation) against Harris County, allowing them to proceed to trial. However, summary judgment was granted for Harris County on the § 1985, § 1986, and sexual battery claims due to lack of evidence for conspiracy/class-based animus and sovereign immunity.

Sexual AssaultInmate AbuseCivil RightsFirst AmendmentDue ProcessDeliberate IndifferenceMunicipal LiabilityState ActionCorrectional FacilitiesChaplain Misconduct
References
196
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald v. Sabayrac Battery Associates, Inc.

L. N. McDonald was injured and his son was killed in a workplace accident in 1977 while employed by Sabayrac Battery Associates, Inc. McDonald received workers' compensation benefits but later filed suit in 1980, alleging the Texas Workers' Compensation Act was unconstitutional as applied. He contended a denial of due process due to lack of actual notice for waiving benefits and suing for common law negligence, and a denial of equal protection for being precluded from recovering exemplary damages. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the Act's provisions regarding constructive notice and the classification for exemplary damages were constitutional and reasonable.

Workers' CompensationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefCommon Law NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkplace Accident
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,575 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational