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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barnes

The appellate court reversed a murder conviction, finding the People failed to prove the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, charged with murder for shooting a co-worker, had raised an insanity defense. Two court-appointed psychiatrists testified that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and lacked the capacity to understand his actions. The court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict. Consequently, the case was remitted to the trial court with directions to enter a directed verdict of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and to issue an examination order.

Insanity defenseMurderSchizophreniaParanoid typeCriminal procedureBurden of proofSanityAppellate reviewRemittalDirected verdict
References
6
Case No. E2005-02406-CCA-R3-DD
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Kiser

Marlon Duane Kiser was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and two counts of first-degree felony murder of Hamilton County Deputy Sheriff Donald Bond. The jury sentenced Kiser to death, citing the murder of a law enforcement officer on duty as an aggravating circumstance. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, but remanded for merging the murder convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, rejecting challenges to Kiser's competency waiver, jury selection, exclusion of evidence, and the constitutionality of Tennessee's lethal injection protocol. The court remanded for entry of a single judgment of conviction for first-degree murder.

First Degree MurderPremeditated MurderFelony MurderDeath PenaltyCapital PunishmentSentencing PhaseMitigating EvidenceCompetency WaiverJury SelectionBatson Challenge
References
142
Case No. E2015-02262-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Barbara Mae Potter

Barbara Mae Potter was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence, arising from the murders of Billy Clay Payne and Billie Jean Hayworth. The crimes were the culmination of a year-long online and in-person feud between the Potter family and the victims. The defendant, her husband Buddy, and Jamie Curd conspired in the murders, with Buddy being the shooter and Jamie assisting. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder and tampering convictions, reinstated the conspiracy conviction, and remanded the case for sentencing on the conspiracy charge. The court addressed issues including venue, prosecutorial conduct, witness testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and motion to sever.

Premeditated MurderConspiracy to MurderTampering with EvidenceCriminal ResponsibilityOnline HarassmentCyberbullyingSocial Media FeudChange of VenueProsecutorial MisconductSufficiency of Evidence
References
38
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. Burdo

The defendant appealed a judgment from Clinton County Court convicting them of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree. The appeal raised two primary issues: audio-visual coverage of the defendant's arraignment, which violated Judiciary Law § 218, and the denial of challenges for cause during jury selection. The court found that while the arraignment coverage was a statutory violation, it did not warrant reversal per se as the claims of jury taint were unsubstantiated. However, the Appellate Division determined that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause for two prospective jurors who failed to unequivocally state their ability to be impartial, despite expressing predispositions. As the defendant exhausted their peremptory challenges, this error mandated a new trial.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureJury SelectionChallenges for CauseVoir DireJudiciary LawAudio-Visual CoverageArraignmentFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baxter v. State

GALBREATH, Judge, dissents from the majority's decision affirming a first-degree murder conviction in the Madison County Criminal Court. The case involved a defendant accused of the shotgun slaying of Norris Attaway, driven by jealousy over his estranged wife's alleged affair with the victim. Judge Galbreath argues that the facts do not support a finding of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated murder, contending that the killing occurred in the 'hot blood of passion' due to the defendant's conviction of his wife's infidelity. Citing numerous precedents, the dissent asserts that such strong provocation should mitigate the offense to voluntary manslaughter or at least second-degree murder. The judge concludes that the degree of the offense and the punishment should be reduced from first-degree murder.

JealousyMarital InfidelityProvocationVoluntary ManslaughterSecond-Degree MurderFirst-Degree MurderCriminal LawTennessee LawDissentAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Howington

David Edward Howington entered into an informal immunity agreement with the district attorney general, promising truthful testimony in exchange for a recommendation for a reduced charge of second-degree murder. The prosecutor subsequently refused to honor the agreement, alleging Howington lied about the amount of money received, leading to his conviction for first-degree felony murder. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of such informal agreements. The Court held that these agreements are contractual in nature and judicially enforceable, explicitly overruling *Bruno v. State*. It found that Howington had substantially fulfilled his obligations, and any alleged untruthfulness was immaterial. Consequently, the Court reversed the first-degree murder conviction, entered judgment for second-degree murder, and remanded the case for resentencing.

Immunity AgreementProsecutorial DiscretionContract LawBreach of ContractCriminal ProcedureFirst-Degree MurderSecond-Degree MurderSelf-IncriminationPreliminary HearingJudicial Enforcement
References
25
Case No. AP-77,031
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Davis, Franklin

This document is an appellant's brief in the case of Franklin Davis v. The State of Texas, appealing a capital murder conviction and death sentence from Dallas County. Davis was convicted of the capital murder of Shania Gray, allegedly to obstruct her testimony in a sexual assault case. The brief argues for reversal on multiple grounds, including Batson violations during jury selection, improper denial of motions to quash indictment and suppress evidence, and insufficient evidence to prove the "obstruction" element of capital murder. Additionally, Davis raises numerous constitutional challenges to Texas's death penalty scheme and jury instructions related to future dangerousness and mitigating circumstances. He contends his motive for the murder was revenge for Gray's false sexual assault allegations, not an attempt to prevent her testimony.

Capital MurderDeath PenaltyJury SelectionBatson ChallengeEvidentiary MotionsSufficiency of EvidenceObstruction of JusticeFuture DangerousnessMitigationConstitutional Law
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State of Tennessee v. Dale Keith Larkin

This opinion addresses the appeal of Dale Keith Larkin, who was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and insurance fraud. The court reversed the convictions, finding that the trial court failed to adequately perform its duty as the thirteenth juror and erred by allowing a key expert witness, Dr. Mileusnic, to testify for the State after initially being retained by the defense. The appellate court further concluded that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove premeditation for the murder charge and insufficient proof for the insurance fraud conviction. Consequently, the first degree murder conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial on second degree murder, and the insurance fraud conviction was reversed and dismissed. The opinion also addressed other issues raised by the defendant regarding jury sequestration and admission of evidence, finding no error in those aspects.

MurderInsurance FraudAppellate ReviewExpert Witness DisqualificationThirteenth Juror RulePremeditationSufficiency of EvidenceAutopsy PhotographsProsecutorial MisconductMedical Testimony
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Clarke

The case involves the appeal of Brian Clarke's conviction for felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The initial judgment sentenced him to 25 years to life for murder in the second degree. On appeal, the court found that the defendant received meaningful representation and the motion to vacate judgment was properly denied. However, the appellate court, exercising discretion in the interest of justice, reduced the sentence for murder in the second degree to a term of 15 years to life. This modification was based on factors such as it being the defendant's first offense, his below-average intelligence, and the jury's conviction solely on the felony-murder count. A dissenting opinion argued against the sentence reduction, highlighting the brutal nature of the crime—a cold-blooded execution during a robbery—and the defendant's background as an admitted drug dealer.

Criminal LawFelony MurderRobberyCriminal Possession of WeaponSentence ReductionAppellate ReviewProsecutorial MisconductSuppression MotionMeaningful RepresentationMental Capacity
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 322 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