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. 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

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
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. 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
Jan 14, 2002

People v. Fernandez

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree after a jury trial in Bionx County. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and concurrent sentences of six years and one year, respectively. The verdict was upheld against the weight of the evidence, as the jury properly rejected the defendant's justification defense, finding his use of force unjustified despite the complainant reaching for the knife first. The court noted that the defendant inflicted severe injuries while remaining uninjured and was still advancing with a knife on the unarmed, retreating complainant when police arrived. Additionally, the court properly redacted a reference to past drug use from the complainant's medical triage sheet due to a lack of proper foundation and irrelevance to treatment. The defendant's ability to cross-examine on the complainant's drug use at the time of the incident was not precluded.

Criminal LawAssault Second DegreeCriminal Possession of a WeaponJustification DefenseSelf-DefenseWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMedical Records RedactionHearsay RuleCross-Examination
References
2
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
Nov 13, 1987

People v. Stevenson

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, one count of assault in the first degree, and two counts of assault in the second degree after repeatedly stabbing his wife and forcing his stepdaughter out a window. On appeal, the court considered whether a lesser included offense charge for reckless assault should have been given, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of intoxication to warrant it. The court also held that the conviction for assault in the second degree under the fourth count of the indictment should be reversed and dismissed as it constituted a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree, and a defendant cannot be simultaneously convicted of both. The judgment was largely affirmed, but modified to dismiss the aforementioned assault charge.

Attempted MurderAssaultLesser Included OffenseIntoxication DefenseCriminal AppealPrior Inconsistent StatementHearsaySpousal AbuseChild EndangermentJury Charge
References
11
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. M2014-00472-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2016

State of Tennessee v. Lindsey Brooke Lowe

The parents of the defendant, Lindsey Brooke Lowe, discovered the body of one of her newborn twins in a laundry basket in her bedroom. A second deceased newborn was also found in the basket, and the defendant gave an incriminating statement to police. A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of first degree (felony) murder, two counts of first degree (premeditated) murder, and two counts of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the first degree murder convictions for each victim. The defendant received a life sentence for each first degree murder conviction and a twenty-five year sentence for each aggravated child abuse conviction, all to be served concurrently. On appeal she asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; that the trial court erred in not suppressing her statement; that the trial court was biased; that the trial court denied her the right to testify in her defense; that the burden of proof was shifted to the defense; that her motion for a change of venue should have been granted; that the physical evidence obtained through a search warrant should have been suppressed; that the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding her ability to waive her right to remain silent; that the trial court erred in various other evidentiary decisions; and that she is entitled to relief under the theory of cumulative error. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Felony MurderPremeditated MurderAggravated Child AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceCustodial InterrogationMiranda RightsWaiver VoluntarinessExpert Witness TestimonyJudicial ImpartialityRight to Testify
References
121
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,599 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