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. W1999-00844-CCA-R3-DD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2002

State v. McKinney

Timothy McKinney was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. The jury imposed a death sentence for the first-degree murder, citing a prior violent felony as an aggravating circumstance, and a consecutive twelve-year sentence for attempted second-degree murder. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, addressing various legal challenges. The Court found no error in denying expert testimony on eyewitness identification, upheld the clarity of the jury's verdict form on aggravating circumstances, and confirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the prior violent felony. It also ruled that the trial court's limitation on defense counsel's closing argument during the sentencing phase was harmless error and that victim impact evidence was properly admitted. Finally, the Court concluded that the death sentence was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate through a comparative proportionality analysis, aligning it with similar cases where capital punishment was upheld.

First Degree MurderAttempted Second Degree MurderDeath SentenceAggravating CircumstancePrior Violent FelonyEyewitness IdentificationVictim Impact EvidenceProportionality ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional Rights
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1989

People v. Jackson

The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree robbery, receiving concurrent sentences. The conviction stemmed from a night-time robbery in Times Square that resulted in the victim's murder, with eyewitnesses placing the defendant at the scene and observing him initiate the fatal assault. Medical evidence corroborated the cause of death. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting the defendant's affirmative defense to felony murder due to overwhelming evidence of his active participation and denying the submission of attempted petty larceny as a lesser included offense. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the admission of background testimony about the victim, deeming it relevant to explain the victim's presence at the scene.

Felony MurderAttempted RobberySecond Degree MurderEyewitness TestimonyMedical EvidenceAffirmative DefenseLesser Included OffenseAdmissibility of TestimonyAppellate ReviewJury Instructions
References
7
Case No. M2012-00532-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

State of Tennessee v. Timothy W. Sparrow

The appellant, Timothy W. Sparrow, appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and attempted aggravated robbery. These convictions arose from a 2008 shooting incident where Jose Arias was fatally shot and Thomas Davenport was nearly shot during an attempted robbery. Sparrow raised several issues on appeal, including challenges to the pretrial identification process, the sufficiency of the evidence, a Batson challenge regarding jury selection, and the admission of certain evidence. He also contested trial court communications with jurors and the appropriateness of his sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee meticulously reviewed each ground for appeal and ultimately affirmed the judgments of the trial court.

Criminal AppealSecond Degree MurderAttempted MurderAggravated RobberyEyewitness IdentificationPhoto LineupSufficiency of EvidenceBatson ChallengeJury DeliberationsSentencing Guidelines
References
104
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 1995

People v. Mojica

This appellate case addresses whether a trial court deprived a criminal defendant of his right to counsel by issuing a protective order that temporarily prevented his attorney from revealing a witness's identity due to credible threats of intimidation. The defendant, convicted of multiple counts of murder and attempted murder in Bronx County, appealed this "gag order" and its alleged impact on his defense strategy. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the limited restriction on attorney-client communication was a reasonable and permissible exercise of discretion to ensure witness safety, especially given the defendant's history of threats and gang affiliation. The court found that the order did not prohibit all communication and allowed sufficient time for defense counsel to prepare once the witness was identified. However, the judgment was modified to correct a sentencing error, reducing the minimum terms for the attempted murder convictions from 12½ to 8⅓ years.

Right to CounselWitness IntimidationGag OrderProtective OrderAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureSentencing ErrorHomicideAttempted MurderHome Invasion
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wilhelm

The defendant was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and attempted to drown one son before successfully drowning another, Luke, on April 15, 2002. She confessed to police and later to Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworkers. The County Court denied motions to suppress these admissions. Following a trial, the jury rejected her insanity defense and found her guilty of murder and attempted murder. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, holding that the defendant's statements to the CPS caseworkers were obtained in violation of her right to counsel because the caseworkers were acting as agents of law enforcement. The court concluded that the admission of these statements was not harmless error, requiring a new trial.

Right to CounselCPL 710.30 NoticeInvoluntary StatementsAgency of Law EnforcementChild Protective ServicesHarmless Error AnalysisInsanity DefensePsychotic DisorderParanoid SchizophreniaCriminal Responsibility
References
54
Case No. E2019-01558-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2020

State of Tennessee v. Michael William Shavers

The defendant, Michael William Shavers, appealed the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of a 10-year effective sentence for attempted second degree murder. Shavers had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted second degree murder with the condition of supervised probation. A probation violation warrant was issued after he failed two drug screens and did not pay court costs and supervision fees. During the revocation hearing, the defendant admitted to using illegal substances. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the revocation or the decision to order incarceration.

Probation RevocationDrug Screen FailureAttempted Second Degree MurderSentencingAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPreponderance of EvidenceJudicial DiscretionCriminal AppealViolation of Probation Conditions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1988

People v. Scott

Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree and two counts of attempted murder in the second degree after a jury trial. The crimes stemmed from an incident where the defendant, after being fired from a fast-food establishment, returned and shot four victims, killing two and wounding two. He fled, leading to a manhunt, and was eventually apprehended after a hostage crisis involving his own family. On appeal, the defendant challenged the court's Sandoval ruling regarding inquiry into prior attempted robbery and the admission of evidence of a fight with a co-worker under People v. Molineux. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the Sandoval ruling or the admission of motive evidence, and no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

MurderAttempted MurderJury TrialSentencingDue ProcessPeople v SandovalPeople v MolineuxAdmissibility of EvidencePrior Bad ActsMotive
References
4
Case No. M2006-02783-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2008

State of Tennessee v. Ronald Brown

Ronald Steven Brown was convicted of multiple offenses including attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, assault, aggravated assault, felony evading arrest, and DUI, receiving an effective sentence of forty-three years. He appealed, alleging errors regarding unpreserved transcripts of pretrial motions and sentencing hearings, excessive sentencing, an amended indictment after the jury was sworn, and sentencing in violation of Gomez v. Tenn. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments of the trial court. The appellate court found that Brown failed to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 by not preparing a statement of the evidence to reconstruct the record, which proved fatal to all issues raised on appeal.

Criminal AppealSentencing IssuesDue ProcessMissing TranscriptsAppellate Procedure Rule 24Indictment AmendmentExcessive SentenceAttempted First Degree MurderAttempted Second Degree MurderAggravated Assault
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Eldridge

The defendant appealed a conviction for attempted second degree murder. The appeal presented three main issues: the state's failure to preserve a knife, erroneous jury instructions on attempted second degree murder, and the participation of special prosecutors who simultaneously represented the victim in a related civil lawsuit. The court found no violation regarding the missing knife under Brady v. Maryland or Arizona v. Youngblood, and the jury instructions were deemed sufficient. However, the court concluded that the involvement of special prosecutors with a direct financial interest in the parallel civil case violated the defendant's due process rights under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. This conflict of interest was deemed plain error, affecting the integrity of the judicial process. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Attempted MurderSecond Degree MurderSpecial ProsecutorsDue Process ViolationConflict of InterestExculpatory EvidenceJury InstructionsCriminal AppealRemand for New TrialPlain Error
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbons v. State

Marion Gibbons, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted theft, valued over $10,000, arguing insufficient evidence. The indictment alleged Gibbons attempted to unlawfully appropriate money from James L. Ballard by negotiating a settlement for an invalid worker's compensation claim for Donnie J. Dukes after Dukes' death. Despite engaging in unethical conduct, such as continuing negotiations and withholding information about Dukes' death from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and allegedly attempting to bribe an adjuster, the court found these actions did not amount to more than mere preparation. Crucially, the Compromise Settlement Agreement was never executed or submitted for approval by the Industrial Accident Board, which was a prerequisite for collecting funds. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and Gibbons was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Attempted TheftCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceWorker's Compensation ClaimLegal EthicsMere Preparation DoctrineIndustrial Accident BoardCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudAttorney Misconduct
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,513 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