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. 926 S.W.2d 727 (1994)
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1994

State v. Keen

David M. Keen pled guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated rape of an 8-year-old girl. A jury sentenced him to death, finding multiple aggravating circumstances, including the victim's age, heinousness, and the murder occurring during rape. Keen appealed, raising 17 issues, primarily concerning jury instructions on mitigating circumstances and the death penalty statute. The Supreme Court of Tennessee found errors in the jury instructions regarding the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the definition of 'heinous, atrocious, or cruel' aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.

Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltySentencing ErrorJury InstructionsAggravating CircumstancesMitigating CircumstancesFelony MurderRapeChild VictimAutopsy
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Huschle Bros.

The court affirmed Special Term's decision to strike certain paragraphs from the defendant's answer due to redundancy and failure to comply with Civil Practice Act § 241, which requires plain and concise statements of material facts in pleadings, even in libel actions. Specifically, the court found the material insufficient as a defense of justification if it purported to apply general statements about labor unions to the plaintiff union. The decision further clarified the requirements for pleading justification, stating that particular facts and circumstances constituting the truth must be set forth in detail, rather than merely reiterating libelous words. Additionally, for pleading mitigation, the court mandated that specific mitigating circumstances, including sources of information and grounds for belief, be stated to demonstrate an absence of actual malice, pursuant to Civil Practice Act § 338. Finally, the court addressed the burden of proof for establishing actual malice in cases involving qualified privilege, noting that it generally rests with the plaintiff once a relationship giving rise to qualified privilege is established.

LibelPleading standardsJustification defenseMitigation defenseActual maliceQualified privilegeCivil Practice ActRedundancy in pleadingsMaterial factsBurden of proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giannetti v. Darling Delaware Carting Co.

The plaintiff suffered severe burns while employed at Arby's. During the damages phase of the trial, the defendant sought to introduce safety gloves as evidence to mitigate damages, arguing that their use would have prevented or lessened the injuries. The plaintiff objected, contending that such evidence was improper for the damages phase and that 'seat belt' precedents were not applicable due to the lack of a statutory mandate for safety gloves. The court, drawing an analogy to seat belt cases, ruled that safety gloves could be admitted as evidence for mitigation of damages if the defendant proves their availability, the reasonableness of their use, and a causal link between non-use and injuries. This decision effectively allows the introduction of pre-accident conduct to mitigate damages in certain circumstances beyond statutory mandates.

Mitigation of DamagesSafety GlovesSeat Belt DefensePersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityPre-accident ConductEmployer LiabilityReasonable Prudent Person StandardTort Law
References
15
Case No. KA 14-00721
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

SCZERBANIEWICZ, THOMAS, PEOPLE v

The case involves an appeal by Thomas Sczerbaniewicz from an Onondaga County Court order classifying him as a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders initially recommended a level one risk but applied an override to level three due to a diagnosed psychological abnormality impacting impulse control. The County Court, while not applying the override, determined an upward departure to level three was warranted based on aggravating circumstances. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence that aggravating circumstances, such as the defendant's involvement in a child pornography ring, possession of over 1,500 child pornography images, and admitted fantasies in prison, justified the upward departure. The court also rejected the defendant's request for a downward departure, concluding that his cited mitigating factors were outweighed by the aggravating circumstances.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORARisk AssessmentUpward DepartureChild PornographyPsychological AbnormalityAggravating CircumstancesDownward DepartureAppellate ReviewCriminal Law
References
8
Case No. M2003-00539-CCA-R3-DD
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2006

State v. Reid

The defendant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was convicted of multiple counts of premeditated murder, felony murder, attempted murder, and especially aggravated robbery stemming from a McDonald's restaurant incident. He was subsequently sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the convictions and death sentences, addressing various issues including the defendant's competence to stand trial, the admissibility of evidence regarding weapon possession and financial condition, the introduction of evidence from prior murders to establish a 'mass murder' aggravating circumstance, and the trial judge's denial of a recusal motion. The court found no reversible error in the trial proceedings or the sentencing phase, upholding the death sentences based on overwhelming evidence of aggravating circumstances despite the presentation of mitigating factors related to his unstable childhood and mental health.

MurderFelony MurderAttempted MurderAggravated RobberyDeath PenaltyCompetency to Stand TrialAggravating CircumstancesMitigating CircumstancesProportionality ReviewEyewitness Identification
References
148
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mooney

This case concerns a defendant who was indicted for attempted manslaughter and subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted assault. A mitigation hearing was held to determine if a community-based sentence was appropriate under Penal Law § 70.02 (5) (b). The court found that attempted manslaughter is not an "armed felony offense" as initially believed. Significant mitigating circumstances were identified, including the defendant's lack of criminal history, extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the offense, severe drug abuse, and active participation in victim reconciliation and diversion programs. Despite the serious nature of the crime involving the shooting of two individuals, the court, considering the victims' empathy and community support, granted the defendant a community-based sentence with 600 hours of community service focused on drug abuse education, determining it would better serve societal goals than state prison confinement.

Attempted ManslaughterAttempted AssaultMitigation HearingCommunity-based SentencePenal LawArmed Felony OffenseExtreme Emotional DisturbanceDrug AbuseVictim Impact StatementVictim Reconciliation
References
5
Case No. AP-77,029
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2015

Harris, James Jr.

This document is a transcript from a Capital Murder trial involving James Harris Jr. It primarily covers two main aspects: a Rule 705 examination for expert witness Dr. Raymond Singer and the individual voir dire of potential jurors (Ms. Woods, Ms. Cooper, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Vanscoy). During the expert witness hearing, the judge allows Dr. Singer to testify as a neuropsychologist and neurotoxicologist, despite the State's objections regarding his qualifications and past exclusions from testifying in other courts, while also allowing the State to cross-examine on those past exclusions. The bulk of the transcript details the extensive questioning of several potential jurors by both the prosecution and defense, delving into their views on the death penalty, presumptions of innocence, burden of proof, circumstantial evidence, voluntary intoxication, and their ability to follow specific legal instructions, including disregarding confessions and considering mitigating circumstances. The defense repeatedly challenges jurors for cause, citing biases towards the death penalty and an inability to consider mitigation or disregard confessions, but these challenges are largely denied by the court. The defense's request for additional peremptory strikes is also denied, leading to an objectionable juror being seated.

Capital MurderExpert Witness TestimonyNeurotoxicologyNeuropsychologyVoir DireJury SelectionDeath PenaltyMitigating CircumstancesFuture DangerousnessConfession Admissibility
References
39
Case No. M2017-02269-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Robert William Ward

Robert William Ward was convicted in Davidson County of attempted first-degree murder with serious bodily injury and possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony, stemming from shooting Valerie Carter in the head during a drug transaction. Ward appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for premeditation, errors in admitting prior conduct and hearsay, limits on cross-examination, and an excessive sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments, finding the evidence sufficient for premeditation, no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, and the sentence appropriate given the enhancement factors and lack of mitigating circumstances.

Attempted MurderFirearm PossessionSerious Bodily InjuryCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidencePremeditationSelf-DefensePrior Bad Acts EvidenceHearsay TestimonyWitness Credibility
References
49
Case No. M2004-01610-CCA-RM-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2004

Anthony Darrell Hines v. State of Tennessee

The case concerns Anthony Darrell Hines, convicted of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to death, appealing the denial of post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration of a previous conclusion regarding an aggravating circumstance. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel regarding investigation, mitigation proof, jury selection, or constitutional arguments. The court also addressed arguments concerning the constitutionality and retroactive application of Apprendi and Ring, affirming previous rulings and finding them inapplicable.

Criminal LawCapital PunishmentPost-Conviction ReliefIneffective Assistance of CounselAggravating CircumstancesMitigating EvidenceJury VenireDue ProcessFelony MurderStrickland Standard
References
114
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Felix

The defendant, Felix, was convicted of intentional manslaughter after fatally stabbing Melvin Martinez due to long-standing animosity. The trial court imposed a maximum 25-year sentence. Justice Tom, J.E., dissents from a decision that reduced Felix's sentence, arguing that there are no mitigating circumstances justifying the leniency. The dissent emphasizes the unprovoked and deliberate nature of the killing, Felix's unconvincing claims of self-defense, and his perceived lack of remorse, advocating for the affirmation of the original 25-year judgment. The document details the events leading to the stabbing, witness testimonies, and the medical examiner's findings, underscoring the severity of the crime.

Criminal LawManslaughterSentencingDissenting OpinionAggravated AssaultLack of RemorseSelf-Defense ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionIntentional Killing
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 908 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